§ 609.535
Citing Cases (16)
Minnesota Supreme Court
State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler · 2016 28 citations
+ 28 more citations in this opinion.
State v. Cox · 2011 13 citations
+ 13 more citations in this opinion.
In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Pierce · 2005 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Minneapolis Auto Auction, Ltd. v. Spicer Auto Sales, Inc. · 1989 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
State v. Roden · 1986 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
State v. Williams · 1982 4 citations
+ 4 more citations in this opinion.
Minnesota Court of Appeals
State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler · 2016 13 citations
+ 13 more citations in this opinion.
State v. Maddox · 2013 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Metro Milwaukee Auto Auction v. Coulson · 2000 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Minneapolis Auto Auction, Ltd. v. Spicer Auto Sales, Inc. · 1988 2 citations
The trial court determined that the bond was intended to benefit only those parties who lost money as a result of dealer license violations. Minneapolis Auto Auction, Alamo and Mid-State all lost money due to Spicer’s “issuance of dishonored checks.” Minn. Stat. § 609.535 (1986). The trial court found the issuance of bad checks to be a nonlicense violation. As a result, the trial court determined that the monetary losses of Minneapolis Auto Auction, Alamo and Mid-State did not trigger application of the bond provision. Minn. Stat. § 168.27, subd. 24.
The trial court determined that the bond was intended to benefit only those parties who lost money as a result of dealer license violations. Minneapolis Auto Auction, Alamo and Mid-State all lost money due to Spicer’s “issuance of dishonored checks.” Minn. Stat. § 609.535 (1986). The trial court found the issuance of bad checks to be a nonlicense violation. As a result, the trial court determined that the monetary losses of Minneapolis Auto Auction, Alamo and Mid-State did not trigger application of the bond provision. Minn. Stat. § 168.27, subd. 24.
State, City of Tracy v. Neuman · 1986 5 citations
+ 5 more citations in this opinion.
State v. Staten · 1986 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
State v. Roden · 1986 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
U.S. District Court, D. Minnesota
Sonmore v. Checkrite Recovery Services., Inc. · 2001 2 citations
Finally, Defendants Hawks argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims because Plaintiffs knew their checking accounts had negative balances when they wrote their dishonored checks. In doing so, Defendants Hawks argue, Plaintiffs violated Minn. Stat. § 609.535. Thus, the debt arose from Plaintiffs’ criminal conduct, which is not encompassed under the FDCPA’s protective umbrella.
Finally, Defendants Hawks argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims because Plaintiffs knew their checking accounts had negative balances when they wrote their dishonored checks. In doing so, Defendants Hawks argue, Plaintiffs violated Minn. Stat. § 609.535. Thus, the debt arose from Plaintiffs’ criminal conduct, which is not encompassed under the FDCPA’s protective umbrella.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Bankr. D. Minnesota
Monfort, Inc. v. Kunkel (In Re Morken) · 1995 4 citations
+ 4 more citations in this opinion.
Check Control, Inc. v. Anderson (In Re Anderson) · 1995 4 citations
+ 4 more citations in this opinion.