Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 481.09 (2026)

Proof Of Authority

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A court, upon motion and hearing, and when reasonable grounds are shown, may require any attorney to prove the attorney's authority to appear and, until such proof is made, may stay all proceedings by the attorney on behalf of the party the attorney assumes to represent. At any stage of the proceedings the court may relieve a party from the consequences of the unauthorized acts of an attorney and, upon motion, may summarily compel such attorney to repair any injury resulting therefrom.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1942–2009 · leading case: Humphrey on Behalf of State v. McLaren, 402 N.W.2d 535 (Minn. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Humphrey on Behalf of State v. McLaren, 402 N.W.2d 535 (Minn. 1987). · cites it 2× “After issue was joined, defendant McLaren moved to disqualify Attorney General Humphrey or any member of his office from representing the plaintiff and further moved for an order requiring the attorney general, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 481.09 (1986), to show proof of authority…”

Hornberger v. Wendel, 764 N.W.2d 371 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “We next review the district court’s ruling that Strifert did not have authority to act on appellant’s behalf, as his attorney, and its order that Strifert pay attorney fees and costs pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 481.09 (2008). “Construction of an insurance policy involves a question…”

Larson v. Dahlstrom, 6 N.W.2d 37 (Minn. 1942). “1941, § 481.09 (Mason St. 1927, § 5691), where it is provided that the court, upon motion and hearing, and when reasonable grounds are shown, will determine this question.”

Larson v. Dahlstrom, 6 N.W.2d 636 (Minn. 1942). “1941, § 481.09 (Mason St. 1927, § 5691), questioning the authority of the attorneys for appellants to take an appeal in the above entitled action on behalf of the alleged appellants, Myrtle Payton and Charles W.”

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.