Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Degen v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc., 110 N.W.2d 863.

34 citing documents.

Gunderson v. Alliance of Computer Professionals, Inc. 628 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Gunderson v. Alliance of Computer Professionals, Inc. 628 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See, e.g., Degen v. Investors Diversified Servs., Inc., 260 Minn. 424, 428 , (concluding that employer’s statement that employee should consider his job “a career situation” fell “far short of establishing a lifetime contract”).
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 616 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 2000
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 616 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 2000
260 Minn. 424, 425, 428 , -66 (1961).
Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc. 526 N.W.2d 369 Minn. 1995
Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc. 526 N.W.2d 369 Minn. 1995
For example, in Degen v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc., 260 Minn. 424 , we found no offer for lifetime employment where the employer told the employee that he had a great future with the company and that he could consider his job a “career situation.” Id.
Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc. 483 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1992
Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc. 483 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1992
See Cederstrand v. Lutheran Brotherhood, 263 Minn. 520 , Degen v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc., 260 Minn. 424
Michaelson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 474 N.W.2d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Michaelson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 474 N.W.2d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
However, an assurance of a “ ‘career position’ * * * falls far short of establishing a lifetime contract.” Degen v. Investors Diversified Servs., 260 Minn. 424, 428
Harris v. Mardan Business Systems, Inc. 421 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Harris v. Mardan Business Systems, Inc. 421 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Degen v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc., 260 Minn. 424, 428-30 , -67 (1961); Skagerberg v. Blandin Paper Co., 197 Minn. 291 , 266 N.W.
Peters v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. 420 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Peters v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. 420 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Degen v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc., 260 Minn. 424
Goodkind v. University of Minnesota 417 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 1988
Goodkind v. University of Minnesota 417 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 1988
See also Degen v. Investors Diversified Servs., Inc., 260 Minn. 424
Aberman v. Malden Mills Industries, Inc. 414 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Aberman v. Malden Mills Industries, Inc. 414 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Accordingly, the courts have erected a veritable array of obstacles to their enforcement.” Degen v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc., 260 Minn. 424, 428-29 , (quoting Lee v. Jenkins Brothers, 268 F.2d 357, 368 (2nd Cir.1959)).
Simonson v. Meader Distribution Co. 413 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Simonson v. Meader Distribution Co. 413 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Cederstrand v. Lutheran Brotherhood, 263 Minn. 520 , Degen v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc., 260 Minn. 424 , Dumas v. Kessler & Maguire Funeral Home
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 389 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1986
Dumas v. Kessler & Maguire Funeral Home, Inc. 380 N.W.2d 544 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Dumas v. Kessler & Maguire Funeral Home, Inc. 380 N.W.2d 544 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The supreme court addressed such argument in Cedarstrand and in Degen v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc., 260 Minn. 424 , where it was stated that an employer’s mere policy statements or practices will not turn an at-will contract of employment into one requiring good cause to discharge an employee.
Bakker v. Metropolitan Pediatric, P. A. 355 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bakker v. Metropolitan Pediatric, P. A. 355 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Degen v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc., 260 Minn. 424 , Cederstrand v. Lutheran Brotherhood, 263 Minn. 520
Pine River State Bank v. Mettille 333 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1983
Pine River State Bank v. Mettille 333 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1983
Thus, in Degen v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc., 260 Minn. 424 , where the employee was told he had a great future with the company and to consider his job as a "career situation," we said these statements did not constitute an offer for a lifetime employment contract.
Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc. 306 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 1981
Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc. 306 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 1981
872 (1936); Degen v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc., 260 Minn. 424 , and Bussard v. College of St.
Horizon Corporation v. Weinberg 531 P.2d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Bussard v. College of Saint Thomas, Inc. 200 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 1972
Bussard v. College of Saint Thomas, Inc. 200 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 1972
1 Other Minnesota cases include: Cederstrand v. Lutheran Brotherhood, 263 Minn. 520 , Degen v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc. 260 Minn. 424 , Smith v. St.
Cederstrand v. Lutheran Brotherhood 117 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1962
Cederstrand v. Lutheran Brotherhood 117 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 1962
It is not invalid for indefiniteness, as is a “lifetime” contract such as we examined in Skagerberg v. Blandin Paper Co. supra, and Degen v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc. 260 Minn. 424 , 110 N. W. (2d) 863 .