Cited by

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

102 citing documents.

Yager v. Thompson 352 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Yager v. Thompson 352 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Minnesota, “[a] man’s right to labor in any occupation in which he is fit to engage is a valuable right, which should not be taken from him, or limited, by injunction, except in a clear case showing the justice and necessity therefor.” Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525
Marose v. Hennameyer 347 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marose v. Hennameyer 347 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 531
Ostendorf v. Kenyon 347 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Ostendorf v. Kenyon 347 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 531
Campion v. County of Wright 347 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Campion v. County of Wright 347 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 531
Rients v. International Harvester Co. 346 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Rients v. International Harvester Co. 346 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 531
Edin v. Jostens, Inc. 343 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Edin v. Jostens, Inc. 343 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
ure of the business and character of the employment but all the circumstances of the case, including the situation of the parties, the necessity of the restriction for the protection of the employer’s business, and the right of the employee to work and to earn a livelihood and better his status within the limits of his skill, talent, and continued productivity.” Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525
Dalco Corp. v. Dixon 338 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 1983
Dalco Corp. v. Dixon 338 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 1983
After analyzing the criteria by which employment restrictive covenants are to be judged as set forth in Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525 , and applying the criteria to the facts of this case, the trial court stated: [I]t is clear that the restrictions are invalid.
Freeman v. Duluth Clinic, Ltd. 334 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1983
Freeman v. Duluth Clinic, Ltd. 334 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1983
Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 533
Furlev Sales & Associates, Inc. v. North American Automotive Warehouse, Inc. 325 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1982
Furlev Sales & Associates, Inc. v. North American Automotive Warehouse, Inc. 325 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1982
Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 537
National Recruiters, Inc. v. Cashman 323 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1982
National Recruiters, Inc. v. Cashman 323 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1982
Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 533 , (citations omitted).
Langeland v. Farmers State Bank of Trimont 319 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1982
Langeland v. Farmers State Bank of Trimont 319 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1982
See Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525
Jim W. Miller Construction, Inc. v. Schaefer 298 N.W.2d 455 Minn. 1980
Jim W. Miller Construction, Inc. v. Schaefer 298 N.W.2d 455 Minn. 1980
See Davies & Davies Agency, filed October 17, 1980; Harris v. Bolin, 310 Minn. 391 , Eutectic Welding Alloys Corp. v. West, 281 Minn. 13 , Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525
Davies & Davies Agency, Inc. v. Davies 298 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1980
Davies & Davies Agency, Inc. v. Davies 298 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1980
The test of reasonableness of a noncompetition contract was well stated in Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 534, 535-36 , -900 (1965): 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 stipulation has imposed upon the employee any greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer’s bus
B & Y Metal Painting, Inc. v. Ball 279 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1979
B & Y Metal Painting, Inc. v. Ball 279 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1979
See, Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co., 270 Minn. 525, 535
Matter of Turners Crossroad Development Co. 277 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1979
Matter of Turners Crossroad Development Co. 277 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 1979
See, Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting, 270 Minn. 525 , Arthur Murray Dance Studios v. Witter, 62 Ohio L.Abs.
Harris v. Bolin 247 N.W.2d 600 Minn. 1976
Harris v. Bolin 247 N.W.2d 600 Minn. 1976
Naftalin v. John Wood Co. 263 Minn. 135 , Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co. 270 Minn. 525
Haynes v. Monson 224 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1974
Haynes v. Monson 224 N.W.2d 482 Minn. 1974
See, Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co. 270 Minn. 525, 533 , National Benefit Co. v. Union Hospital Co. 45 Minn. 272 , 16 Dunnell, Dig.
Alside, Inc. v. Larson 220 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 1974
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
On January 11, 1973, the trial court, sitting without a jury, found the restrictive covenant not to compete to be unenforceable under Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co. 270 Minn. 525 , specifically finding that defendant’s age, physical condition, and abilities would make it very difficult for him to find employment at a level of income necessary to meet his needs.
Alside, Inc. v. Larson 220 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 1974
The law in Minnesota is probably as well stated in Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co. 270 Minn. 525 , and Eutectic Welding Alloys Corp. v. West, 281 Minn. 13 , as anywhere.
Johnson v. Radde 196 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 1972
Johnson v. Radde 196 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 1972
Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co. 270 Minn. 525
Manpower, Inc. v. Best Temporaries, Inc. 196 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1972
Manpower, Inc. v. Best Temporaries, Inc. 196 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1972
With respect to the interference with contractual relations, the court distinguished Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co. 270 Minn. 525 , on which defendants relied, because here the employment contract between Kochevar and Best was never terminated.
A & J BUILDERS INC. v. Harms 179 N.W.2d 98 Minn. 1970
A & J BUILDERS INC. v. Harms 179 N.W.2d 98 Minn. 1970
summary judgment proceedings, the moving party has the burden of proof *133 and the nonmoving party has the benefit of having the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to him; and that the motion for summary judgment should be denied if, under the evidence, reasonable men might reach different conclusions (Ahlm v. Rooney, 274 Minn. 259 , 143 N. W. [2d] 65; Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co. 270 Minn. 525 , 134 N. W. [2d] 892; Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482 , 70 N. W. [2d] 351; Anderson v.
Galob v. Sanborn 160 N.W.2d 262 Minn. 1968
Galob v. Sanborn 160 N.W.2d 262 Minn. 1968
Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co. 270 Minn. 525 , 134 N. W. (2d) 892 .
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
*20 The fundamental principles determining the enforceability of covenants restricting subsequent employment were fully considered in Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co. 270 Minn. 525 , 134 N. W. (2d) 892 , and have particular application to this case.
Stephenson v. Plastics Corporation of America 150 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1967
Stephenson v. Plastics Corporation of America 150 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1967
Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co. 270 Minn. 525 , 134 N. W. (2d) 892 ; Royal Realty Co. v. Levin, supra; Carnes v. St.