Any person, firm, association, or corporation violating any provision of section 181.64 and this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person who shall be influenced, induced, or persuaded to enter or change employment or change a place of employment through or by means of any of the things prohibited in section 181.64, shall have a right of action for the recovery of all damages sustained in consequence of the false or deceptive representations, false advertising, or false pretenses used to induce the person to enter into or change a place of employment, against any person, firm, association, or corporation directly or indirectly causing such damage; and, in addition to all such actual damages such person may have sustained, shall have the right to recover such reasonable attorney fees as the court shall fix, to be taxed as costs in any judgment recovered.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2012–2024 · leading case:
Nichols v. State, 858 N.W.2d 773 (Minn. 2015).
Nichols v. State, 858 N.W.2d 773 (Minn. 2015).
· cites it 6× “Any such unlawful acts shall be deemed a false advertisement or misrepresentation for the purposes of this section and section 181.65. A violation of section 181.”
Nichols v. State, Off. of the Sec'y, 842 N.W.2d 20 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 5× “Minn.Stat. § 181.65 (2012). The statutory cause of action authorized by sections 181.”
Ewald v. Royal Norwegian Embassy, 902 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (D. Minnesota 2012).
· cites it 2× “Any such unlawful acts shall be deemed a false advertisement or misrepresentation for the purposes of this section and section 181.65. Minn.Stat. § 181.64. Defendant argues that the plain language of the statute requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that the statements at issue…”
Christina Berrier v. Minnesota State Patrol, 9 N.W.3d 368 (Minn. 2024).
· cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 181.65 . Claiming otherwise—that the State itself was impliedly included in a list of entities “doing business in this state” or was bound by a provision imposing criminal penalties—would have been illogical.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.