Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. v. Wolf, 112 N.W.2d 42.

26 citing documents.

Hearing Associates, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Erik Hjelle, The Insurance Shop Services, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Erik Hjelle, The Insurance Shop Services, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hjelle’s reliance on Koering and Sanitary Farm Dairies v. Wolf, 261 Minn. 166, as support for his argument that his letter was permissible preparation rather than prohibited solicitation is misplaced.
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Cf. Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. v. Wolf, 261 Minn. 166, 176 , (discussing employee’s duty of loyalty and exploring “line ...
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
His reliance on Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. v. Wolf, 261 Minn. 166 , is misplaced; the case did not involve a restrictive covenant, as the court expressly noted in its holding.
Bellboy Seafood Corp. v. Nathanson 410 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bellboy Seafood Corp. v. Nathanson 410 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. v. Wolf, 261 Minn. 166 , (employee may prepare to enter a competing business, but may not solicit his employer’s customers before leaving the job).
Rehabilitation Specialists, Inc. v. Koering 404 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Rehabilitation Specialists, Inc. v. Koering 404 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See, e.g., Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. v. Wolf, 261 Minn. 166
T.H. Properties v. Sunshine Auto Rental, Inc. 728 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Loxtercamp, Inc. v. Belgrade Cooperative Ass'n 368 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Loxtercamp, Inc. v. Belgrade Cooperative Ass'n 368 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. v. Wolf, 261 Minn. 166, 167
Blackburn, Nickels & Smith, Inc. v. Erickson 366 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Blackburn, Nickels & Smith, Inc. v. Erickson 366 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
If an employee cannot “feather his own nest at the expense of his employer while he is still on the payroll,” Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. v. Wolf, 261 Minn. 166 , officers have an affirmative duty to act in the employer-corporation’s best interest and to actively promote the interests of the corporation to the exclusion of their own self-interest.
Dalco Corp. v. Dixon 338 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 1983
Dalco Corp. v. Dixon 338 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 1983
See, e.g., Abide, Inc. v. Larson, 300 Minn. 285 , Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. v. Wolf, 261 Minn. 166
Equipment Advertiser, Inc. v. Harris 136 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 1965
Equipment Advertiser, Inc. v. Harris 136 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 1965
Defendants cite Boone v. Krieg, 156 Minn. 83 , , and Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. v. Wolf, 261 Minn. 166 , 112 N. W. (2d) 42 , as controlling and decisive of the issues here.
In re Arbitration Between Public Building Service & Hospital & Institutional Employees Union Local 113 133 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 1965
In re Arbitration Between Public Building Service & Hospital & Institutional Employees Union Local 113 133 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 1965
In an appeal from the clerk’s taxation of costs and disbursements in Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. v. Wolf, 261 Minn. 166, 177 , 112 N. W. (2d) 42, 50 , this court said: “The right to tax costs and disbursements in this court is controlled by Minn. St.
Village of Blaine v. Independent School District No. 12 121 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1963
Village of Blaine v. Independent School District No. 12 121 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1963
Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. v. Wolf, 261 Minn. 166 , 112 N. W. (2d) 42 .
State v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 115 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 1962
State v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 115 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 1962
Our most recent statement on this point is ,set forth in Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc. v. Wolf, 261 Minn. 166, 177 , 112 N. W. (2d) 42, 50 , where we said: “A prevailing party has been defined as one who procures a reversal or modification of the order or judgment from which the appeal is taken.” 1 Since the appellants have secured a reversal on one of the basic issues involved in this action, they are, unless disqualified fo