Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc., 621 N.W.2d 2.

49 citing documents.

Minnesota Teamsters Service Bureau v. GoodRx, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Minnesota Teamsters Service Bureau v. GoodRx, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Health Plan, (requiring a person to be injured to bring an action pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd.
Distinctive Design Build, LLC v. Thomas Nelson, Installed Building Solutions II, LLC, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Distinctive Design Build, LLC v. Thomas Nelson, Installed Building Solutions II, LLC, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Michael Nassif, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Group Health Plan, Inc., v. Philip Morris Inc.
Minn. 2019
Health Plan, (stating that where the damages “are alleged to be caused by a lengthy course of prohibited conduct that affected a large number of consumers, .
Daniel J. Engstrom, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc. , Wexler v. Bros. Entm’t Grp., Inc. , ( stating “to prevail on a consumer protection claim, [ the plaintiff] must prove that [the defendant ] 8 violated .
State v. Minn. Sch. of Bus., Inc. 915 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Minn. Sch. of Bus., Inc. 915 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The Minnesota Supreme Court provided guidance on these elements in Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc.
Mobile Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. v. Racheal L. Hooten f/k/a Racheal L. Jones 889 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mobile Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. v. Racheal L. Hooten f/k/a Racheal L. Jones 889 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Citing Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., SUMA asserts that other decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court make clear that standing under the act is not limited to purchasers or consumers.
State of Minnesota v. Lamar George Houston, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lamar George Houston, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 535 n.5, 94 S. Ct. 1372, 1377 (1974) (“[W]hen questions of jurisdiction have been passed on in prior decisions sub silentio, this Court has never considered itself bound when a subsequent case finally brings the jurisdictional issue before us.”); Group Health Plan, (noting that the court was “disinclined to reach a conclusion about the resolution of this issue from [caselaw] where the precise issue was not raised but arguably is implicit in our holding”).
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A", Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. CVS Caremark Corporation, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Coborn's Incorporated, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, … 850 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 2014
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A", Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. CVS Caremark Corporation, Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Coborn's Incorporated, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, … 850 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 2014
Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc.
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A" v. CVS Caremark Corp. 833 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Graphic Communications Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A" v. CVS Caremark Corp. 833 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Health Plan, (stating that the CFA “defines the conduct proscribed essentially as any misrepresentation made with the intent that others rely on it in connection with the sale of any merchandise”).
Sipe v. STS Manufacturing, Inc. 822 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Sipe v. STS Manufacturing, Inc. 822 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Health Plan, (in a misrepresentation-in-sales statute, construing “injured by a violation” to require “a causal relationship between the alleged injury and the wrongful conduct”).
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 813 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 2012
Baker v. Best Buy Stores, LP 812 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Baker v. Best Buy Stores, LP 812 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Group Health Plan, *183 Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc.
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 792 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., answering two questions certified to it by the federal district court, the Minnesota Supreme Court “determine[d] the scope of statutory claims for relief under [Minnesota consumer-protection laws], first, as to who may bring a claim and, second, as to the nature of the pleading and proof that is necessary to such a claim.”
301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condominium Ass'n 783 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condominium Ass'n 783 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. 742 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. 742 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See, e.g., Group Health Plan, (distinguishing claims under consumer fraud statutes from common-law fraud claims).
Lorix v. Crompton Corp. 736 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2007
Lorix v. Crompton Corp. 736 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2007
We have recognized and applied the broad effect of the words “any person.” See Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t, (“The word ‘any’ is given broad application in statutes, regardless of whether we consider the result reasonable.”); Group Health Plan, -9 (Minn.2001) (stating that “any person” is plain and unambiguous); Philip Morris Inc., d at 496 (applying the plain meaning of Minn.Stat.
Nelson v. Productive Alternatives, Inc. 715 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2006
Nelson v. Productive Alternatives, Inc. 715 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2006
Liabo v. Wayzata Nissan, LLC 707 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Liabo v. Wayzata Nissan, LLC 707 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Group Health Plan, (emphasis added).
Wiegand v. Walser Automotive Groups, Inc. 683 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 2004
Wiegand v. Walser Automotive Groups, Inc. 683 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 2004
The dissent, on the other hand, concluded that our decision in Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., changed the analysis for private consumer fraud actions that the court of appeals utilized in Scott .
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 675 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 2004
Peterson v. BASF Corp. 675 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 2004
Sutton was later vacated by this court and remanded to the court of appeals to consider in light of our decision on the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act in Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc.
Wiegand v. Walser Automotive Groups, Inc. 670 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Wiegand v. Walser Automotive Groups, Inc. 670 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Group Health Plan, Inc., v. Philip Morris Inc., (noting that “to state a claim that any of the substantive statutes has been violated, the plaintiff need only plead that the defendant engaged in conduct prohibited by the statutes and that the plaintiff was damaged thereby.”) 1 ; Minn.Stat.
Gordon v. Microsoft Corp. 645 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 2002
Gordon v. Microsoft Corp. 645 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 2002
In Microsoft’s petition for review of the decision of the court of appeals, Microsoft also raised the issue whether the district court misinterpreted this court’s opinion in Group Health Plan
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2002
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2002
§ 645.16; Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc.
Conwed Corp. v. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co. 634 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 2001
Flynn v. American Home Products Corp. 627 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Flynn v. American Home Products Corp. 627 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Group Health Plan, Inc., v. Philip Morris Inc., -11 (Minn.2001).
Sutton v. Viking Oldsmobile Nissan, Inc. 623 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 2001
Sutton v. Viking Oldsmobile Nissan, Inc. 623 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 2001
Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Court of Appeals filed June 2, 2000, be, and the same is, vacated and the matter is remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration in light of Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc.