Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite National Recruiters, Inc. v. Cashman, 323 N.W.2d 736.

32 citing documents.

Dynamic Energy Solutions, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See, e.g., Nat’l Recruiters, (holding that a noncompete agreement separate from an employment agreement requires additional consideration beyond the consideration supporting the employment agreement).
AutoUpLink Technologies, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Safety Center, Inc. v. Stier 903 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Safety Center, Inc. v. Stier 903 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The Valspar Corporation, Appellant, 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
This court “look[s] upon restrictive covenants with disfavor, carefully scrutinizing them because they are agreements in partial restraint of trade.” National Recruiters
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
See Nat’l Recruiters, -41 (Minn.1982) (stating that because employee and employer were already parties to an employment agreement that defined the employee’s compensation, duties, benefits and other terms of employment, additional consideration would be required to support a non-competition agreement).
Guercio v. Production Automation Corp. 664 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Guercio v. Production Automation Corp. 664 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See Nat’l Recruiters, (holding that when a restraint of trade covenant is not ancillary to the initial “employment contract, it can be sustained only if supported by independent consideration”).
Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp. 630 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp. 630 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See, e.g., National Recruiters
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
Ecolab, Inc. v. Gartland 537 N.W.2d 291 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Ecolab, Inc. v. Gartland 537 N.W.2d 291 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Sanborn Manufacturing Co. v. Currie 500 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Sanborn Manufacturing Co. v. Currie 500 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
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
See National Recruiters, (interference must be intentional).
Lund v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. 467 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
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
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
Gordon Employment, Inc. v. Jewell 356 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Gordon Employment, Inc. v. Jewell 356 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
E.g., National Recruiters
Freeman v. Duluth Clinic, Ltd. 334 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1983
Freeman v. Duluth Clinic, Ltd. 334 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1983
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
Davies & National Recruiters