Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite United Wild Rice, Inc. v. Nelson, 313 N.W.2d 628.

34 citing documents.

A Business Solutions Company LLC, d/b/a AFOX Solutions, LLC, a LGBTE Company, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See United Wild Rice, (holding that soliciting and entering into contracts with prospective customers of former employer was not improper interference); Glass Serv.
Jeffrey C. Brown PLLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
United Wild Rice, Inc. v. Nelson , (holding that a corporation did not violate the act because a letter sent to a competitor’s client did not contain false or misleading information) ; see also Insignia Sys., Inc. v. News Am.
Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Modern Enterprise Solutions, Inc., Timothy Durant Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Dexon Computer, Inc. v. Modern Enterprise Solutions, Inc., Timothy Durant Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Gieseke v. IDCA, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 2014
Gieseke v. IDCA, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 210 Minn. 2014
2 The history of our treatment of this particular tort claim can be traced primarily to three *215 decisions: Witte Transportation Co. v. Murphy Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 291 Minn. 461 , Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419 , and United Wild Rice
Gieseke ex rel. Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. IDCA, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Gieseke ex rel. Diversified Water Diversion, Inc. v. IDCA, Inc. 826 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
The variety of names for the subject tort found in caselaw and the supreme court’s opinion in United Wild Rice, appear to have precipitated the Harbor Broad.
Moore v. Hoff 821 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Moore v. Hoff 821 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
The tort of intentional interference with prospective advantage is “intentionally and improperly interfer[ing] with another’s prospective contractual relation.” United Wild Rice
Harbor Broadcasting, Inc. v. Boundary Waters Broadcasters, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Harbor Broadcasting, Inc. v. Boundary Waters Broadcasters, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
723, 731 (D.Minn.1997) (citing United Wild Rice, -33 (Minn.1982)).
Kellar v. VonHoltum 568 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Kellar v. VonHoltum 568 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Id., quoted in United Wild Rice
R.A., Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. 556 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
R.A., Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. 556 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Midwest Sports Marketing, Inc. v. Hillerich & Bradsby of Canada, Ltd. 552 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Midwest Sports Marketing, Inc. v. Hillerich & Bradsby of Canada, Ltd. 552 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Rehabilitation Specialists, d at 306 .
Glass Service Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 530 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Glass Service Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 530 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
To establish a claim for tortious interference with prospective business relations, “a plaintiff must prove the defendant intentionally committed a wrongful act which improperly interfered with the prospective relationship.” (citing United Wild Rice, ).
Oak Park Development Co. v. Snyder Bros. of Minnesota, Inc. 499 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Oak Park Development Co. v. Snyder Bros. of Minnesota, Inc. 499 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
United Wild Rice, -633 (Minn.1982) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766B (1979)).
Hough Transit, Ltd. v. National Farmers Organization 472 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hough Transit, Ltd. v. National Farmers Organization 472 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See United Wild Rice, -33 (Minn.1982).
Schumacher v. Ihrke 469 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Schumacher v. Ihrke 469 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
While competition is favored in the law and may justify interference, the rule also requires that “the actor does not employ wrongful means.” United Wild Rice, (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts *335 § 768 (1979)).
Hunt v. University of Minnesota 465 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hunt v. University of Minnesota 465 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
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
W. Prosser and W. Keeton, The Law of Torts § 130, at 1015 (5th ed. 1984); see *306 also, e.g., United Wild Rice, (stating unfair competition can be based on tortious interference with contract or improper use of trade secrets).
Wicker v. Roering 364 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Wicker v. Roering 364 N.W.2d 479 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Electro-Craft Corp. v. Controlled Motion, Inc. 332 N.W.2d 890 Minn. 1983
Electro-Craft Corp. v. Controlled Motion, Inc. 332 N.W.2d 890 Minn. 1983
Thus, this case is not as extreme as was United Wild Rice, in which plaintiff itself publicly disclosed the supposedly confidential information.