Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Menter Co. v. Brock, 180 N.W. 553.

34 citing documents.

A25-1473 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Medtronic, Inc., et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An “[i] njunction will not be granted to enforce the provisions of a contract unless the cour t is satisfied that the enforcement will be just and equitable and will not work hardship or oppression.”
St. Jude Med., Inc. v. Carter 913 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 2018
St. Jude Med., Inc. v. Carter 913 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 2018
Menter Co. v. Brock , 147 Minn. 407 , 180 N.W.
Neil N. Lapidus, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The protection of good will is a legitimate business interest “[w]here the services have been of such a character that the employee’s name carries with it the good will of the employer’s business.” Menter Co. v. Brock , 147 Minn. 407, 410, 180 N.W.
Donald Dean Oberfoell, individually and Do-Bid Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Do-Bid Online Auctions, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Appellants also point to cases where an employee had a “route” that made the employee the customers’ exclusive contact with the employer’s business, see Menter Co. v. Brock, 147 Minn. 407, 410-11, 180 N.W.
Prairie Island Indian Community v. Minnesota Department of Public Safety 658 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Prairie Island Indian Community v. Minnesota Department of Public Safety 658 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
The difficulty with much of the case law analysis is illustrated by Milgrim’s citation of a Minnesota case, Menter Co. v. Brock, 147 Minn. 407 , 180 N.W.
Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp. 630 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp. 630 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Webb Publ’ (citing Menter Co. v. Brock, 147 Minn. 407, 410 , 180 N.W.
Webb Publishing Co. v. Fosshage 426 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Webb Publishing Co. v. Fosshage 426 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Menter Co. v. Brock, 147 Minn. 407, 410 , 180 N.W.
Rosewood Mortgage Corp. v. Hefty 383 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Rosewood Mortgage Corp. v. Hefty 383 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Menter Co. v. Brock, 147 Minn. 407, 410 , 180 N.W.
Klick v. Crosstown State Bank of Ham Lake, Inc. 372 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Klick v. Crosstown State Bank of Ham Lake, Inc. 372 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
As the Minnesota Supreme Court said sixty-five years ago, “[o]ne who has nothing but his labor to sell, and is in urgent need of selling that, cannot well afford to raise any objection to any of the terms in the contract of employment offered him, so long as the wages are acceptable.” Menter Co. v. Brock, 147 Minn. 407, 411 , 180 N.W.
Walker Employment Service, Inc. v. Parkhurst 219 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 1974
Walker Employment Service, Inc. v. Parkhurst 219 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 1974
In The Menter Co. v. Brock, 147 Minn. 407 , , 20 A. L. R. 857 (1920), this court refused to enforce a restrictive covenant against a former employee in plaintiff’s retail clothing store.
Eutectic Welding Alloys Corporation v. West 160 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 1968
Eutectic Welding Alloys Corporation v. West 160 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 1968
See, The Menter Co. v. Brock, 147 Minn. 407 , , 20 A. L. R. 857; Standard Oil Co. v. Bertelsen, 186 Minn. 483 , .
Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co. 134 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1965
Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co. 134 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 1965
We said in The Menter Co. v. Brock, 147 Minn. 407, 411 , , 20 A.L.R.
Thermorama, Inc. v. Buckwold 125 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1964
Thermorama, Inc. v. Buckwold 125 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1964
1 The Menter Co. v. Brock, 147 Minn. 407 , , 20 A. L. R. 857; Standard Oil Co. v. Bertelsen, 186 Minn. 483 , 243 N. W 701; Heflebower v. Sand (D. Minn.) 71 F. Supp. 607 ; Restatement, Contracts, § 516(f), comment h. 2 Minn. St.
Breimhorst v. Beckman 35 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1949
Breimhorst v. Beckman 35 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1949
In the same decision ( 147 Minn. 417 , ), we pointed out that: “A personal injury, received at the hands of a wrongdoer, constitutes but one right of action.
Peterson v. Johnson Nut Co. 283 N.W. 561 Minn. 1939
Peterson v. Johnson Nut Co. 283 N.W. 561 Minn. 1939
The Menter Co. v. Brock, 147 Minn. 407, 409-410 , , 20 A. L. R. 857; Simms v. Burnette, 55 Fla.
Standard Oil Co. v. Bertelsen 243 N.W. 701 Minn. 1932
Standard Oil Co. v. Bertelsen 243 N.W. 701 Minn. 1932
The present case comes Avell within the reasoning and holding in Menter Co. v. Brock, 147 Minn. 407 , , 20 A. L. R. 857.
Peoples Cleaning Dyeing Co. Inc. v. Share 210 N.W. 397 Minn. 1926
Peoples Cleaning Dyeing Co. Inc. v. Share 210 N.W. 397 Minn. 1926
In The Menter Co. v. Brock, 147 Minn. 407, 411 , , 20 A. L. R. 857, the court referred with approval to cases holding that an employer may restrain a former employe, such as a driver of a milk wagon or laundry wagon, from soliciting the patronage of the employer’s customers on a route or in a district formerly covered by the employe.
Granger v. Craven 199 N.W. 10 Minn. 1924
Granger v. Craven 199 N.W. 10 Minn. 1924
The last case so annotated (The Menter Co. v. Brock, 147 Minn. 407 , , 20 A. L. R. 857), is confidently relied upon by appellant.