Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 134 N.W.2d 892.

102 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Erica Hopper McMullen, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Co., -99 (Minn. 1965) (noting “distinction between” noncompete agreements “involving business or property transfers and those” involving “employment contracts”).
Amano McGann, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Medtronic, Inc., et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp ., (citation omitted); see also Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co. , d 892, 898 (Minn. 1965) (“[T]his court has uniformly upheld coven ants in a contract of employment designed .
Neil N. Lapidus, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
At trial, Lapidus argued that the noncompete provisions should be evaluated in the context of an employment relationship betwee n Lurie and Lapidus and that the district court should apply the test articulated in Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 8 534
Capistrant v. Lifetouch National School Studios, Inc. 899 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Capistrant v. Lifetouch National School Studios, Inc. 899 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Advance Contract Equipment and Design LC, d/b/a, Rapids Foodservice Contract and Design v. Kevin LaMere, Horizon Equipment LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Advance Contract Equipment and Design LC, d/b/a, Rapids Foodservice Contract and Design v. Kevin LaMere, Horizon Equipment LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Softchoice, (quoting Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 534, ).
Linda K. Yonak v. Hawker Well Works, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Linda K. Yonak v. Hawker Well Works, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This approach stems from a desire to protect “the average individual employee who as a result of his unequal bargaining power may be found in oppressive circumstances.” Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 535
Sysdyne Corporation v. Brian Rousslang 860 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 2015
Sysdyne Corporation v. Brian Rousslang 860 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 2015
Corp., 270 Minn. 525, 537, ).
Softchoice, Inc. v. Schmidt 763 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Softchoice, Inc. v. Schmidt 763 N.W.2d 660 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 534
Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc. 573 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1998
Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc. 573 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1998
In Minnesota, employment noncom-pete agreements “are looked upon with disfavor, cautiously considered, and carefully scrutinized.” Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 533 , (citation omitted).
White v. MINN. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES 567 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
White v. MINN. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES 567 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 531 , (party moving for summary judgment has burden of proof and nonmoving party has benefit of view of evidence in light most favorable to him).
Deli v. Hasselmo 542 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Deli v. Hasselmo 542 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 531
Kjesbo v. Ricks 517 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1994
Kjesbo v. Ricks 517 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 1994
See Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 537 , (quoting Carnes v. St.
Dynamic Air, Inc. v. Bloch 502 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Dynamic Air, Inc. v. Bloch 502 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Restrictive covenants limit one’s right to work and to earn a livelihood and therefore are “looked upon with disfavor, cautiously considered, and carefully scrutinized.” Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 533
Schumacher v. Ihrke 469 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Schumacher v. Ihrke 469 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 532
Overholt Crop Insurance Service Co. v. Bredeson 437 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Overholt Crop Insurance Service Co. v. Bredeson 437 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 533
Community Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Kemper 426 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Community Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Kemper 426 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
According to the Minnesota Supreme Court, “liability for wrongful interference may be avoided by showing that the [respondent] was justified by a lawful object which he had a right to assert.” Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525
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
Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 534 , -900 (1965).
Aslakson v. Home Savings Ass'n 416 N.W.2d 786 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Aslakson v. Home Savings Ass'n 416 N.W.2d 786 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
According to the Minnesota Supreme court, “[[liability for wrongful interference may be avoided by showing that the [respondent] was justified by a lawful object which he had a right to assert.” Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 532
Berg v. City of St. Paul 414 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Berg v. City of St. Paul 414 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 531 , : 2.
St. Louis Park Investment Co. v. R.L. Johnson Investment Co. 411 N.W.2d 288 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
St. Louis Park Investment Co. v. R.L. Johnson Investment Co. 411 N.W.2d 288 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 531
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 Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting, 270 Minn. 525 , (covenant is judged by the nature of the employee’s job, the time he is restricted from competing, and the territorial extent of the restriction).
Farmers State Bank of Delavan v. Jenkins 403 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Farmers State Bank of Delavan v. Jenkins 403 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(citing Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 531 , ).
Guerdon Industries, Inc. v. Rose 399 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Guerdon Industries, Inc. v. Rose 399 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 536-37 , Potthoff v. Jefferson Lines, Inc.
Satellite Industries, Inc. v. Keeling 396 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Satellite Industries, Inc. v. Keeling 396 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
As the court stated in Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 534 , : The test applied is whether or not the restraint is necessary for the protection of the business or good will of the employer, and if so, whether the situation has imposed upon the employee any greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer’s business, regard
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, “Where the restraint is for a just and honest purpose, for the protection of a legitimate interest of the party in whose favor it is imposed, reasonable as between the parties, and not injurious to the public, the restraint has been held valid.” Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 533
Potthoff v. Jefferson Lines, Inc. 363 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Potthoff v. Jefferson Lines, Inc. 363 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 537