Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Products, Inc., 500 N.W.2d 788.

84 citing documents.

Farhan Badel, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State, by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See State by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc., d 888, 892 (Minn. App. 1992), aff’d, (stating that consumer protection laws are intended for the protection of consumers by balancing disproportionate bargaining power present in consumer transactions).
Sarah Anne Trisko, and o/b/o Minor Children, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Minn. Stat. § 609.748 (2020) (not identifying standard of proof for HROs); State by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc., (stating statutory silence on a standard of proof “is regarded as a signal that the legislature intended the preponderance of the evidence standard” to apply).
Minn. 2019
see State by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc., (stating that restitution under Minn. Stat. § 8.31 is equitable relief), aff’d
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
was specifically authorized by statute” under subdivision 3a), aff’d
Paula Polinsky, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Minn. Stat. § 609.748 (not identifying a standard of proof for HROs); State by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc., (stating that statutory silence regarding a standard of proof “is regarded as a signal that the legislature intended the preponderance of the evidence standard” to apply).
David Brian Pemrick v. Lori Ann Bucher Minn. Ct. App. 2017
David Brian Pemrick v. Lori Ann Bucher Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Further, when the legislature does not provide a standard of proof, such silence reflects a “signal that the legislature intended the preponderance of the evidence standard.” State by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods, Inc.
Colleen Marie Berg v. Michael Vincent Flaherty Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Colleen Marie Berg v. Michael Vincent Flaherty Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(explaining that a criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt), with Minn. Stat. § 609.748 (2014) (not identifying a standard of proof for HROs), and State by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc., (stating that statutory silence regarding a standard of proof “is regarded as a signal that the legislature intended the preponderance of the evidence standard” to apply).
Negassi H. Ghebrehiwet v. Khaled Ghneim Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Negassi H. Ghebrehiwet v. Khaled Ghneim Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, e.g., State v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc., (concluding that the district court acted within its discretion in ordering statutorily authorized civil penalty), aff’d on other grounds
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
Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc.
State ex rel. Swanson v. Integrity Advance, LLC 846 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State ex rel. Swanson v. Integrity Advance, LLC 846 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See State by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc., -97 (Minn.App.1992) (holding that a district court “should consider the following factors in determining the size of a civil penalty: (1) the good or bad faith of the defendant; (2) the injury to the public; (3) the defendant’s ability to pay; and (4) the desire to eliminate the benefits derived by the violation.”), aff'd
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
Consumer-protection statutes, including the CFA, “are to be liberally construed in favor of protecting consumers.” State by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc., aff'd see also Nystrom, d at 308 (“We recently observed that the [MCFA] ‘reflects] a clear legislative policy encouraging aggressive prosecution of statutory violations’ and thus should be ‘generally very broadly construed to enhance consumer protection.’ ” (quoting State by Humphrey v. Philip Morris I
In re Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. 835 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. 835 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
of the longstanding presumption that “where the Legislature does not provide a standard of proof ‘for statutorily-created causes of action,’ this silence reflects ‘a signal that the legislature intended the preponderance of the evidence standard’ to apply.” (quoting C.O., d at 353 ); see also State by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc.
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
State by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc., aff'd
Weiler v. Ritchie 788 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 2010
Weiler v. Ritchie 788 N.W.2d 879 Minn. 2010
Moreover, we have recognized that where the Legislature does not provide a standard of proof “for statutorily-created causes of action,” this silence reflects “ ‘a signal that the legislature intended the preponderance of the evidence standard’ to apply.” (quoting State v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc., ).
C.O. v. Doe 757 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2008
C.O. v. Doe 757 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2008
State v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc., (applying preponderance standard to civil fraud case).
Rixmann v. City of Prior Lake 723 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Rixmann v. City of Prior Lake 723 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc.
Lorix v. Crompton Corp. 720 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Lorix v. Crompton Corp. 720 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Riley v. Jankowski 713 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Riley v. Jankowski 713 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc.
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
State by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc., aff'd, see also Wie-gand v. Walser Auto.
Kvidera v. Rotation Engineering & Manufacturing Co. 705 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Kvidera v. Rotation Engineering & Manufacturing Co. 705 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Ag Services of America, Inc. v. Schroeder 693 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Ag Services of America, Inc. v. Schroeder 693 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See, e.g., Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 286 Minn. 199, 202-03 , *236 overruled on other grounds by State by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc., (listing essential elements necessary to establish intentional misrepresentation).
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
State by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., 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
(emphasis in original) State by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc.
Collins v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Collins v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Chancellor Manor v. Thibodeaux 628 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Chancellor Manor v. Thibodeaux 628 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-91 (Minn. 1993) (“Minnesota common law also favors the use of the preponderance of the evidence standard in a civil fraud case.
Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc. 621 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2001
Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc. 621 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2001
State by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., Inc., (emphasis in original).
Zurich Reinsurance (UK) Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. 613 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Zurich Reinsurance (UK) Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. 613 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 2000