Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc., 573 N.W.2d 356.

37 citing documents.

, A25-1164 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Generally, “[t]he American rule prevents a party from shifting its attorney fees to its adversary without a specific contract or statutory authorization.” Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc.
Robert W. Starbeck, individually, and As Trustee of the Arthur C. Starbeck Trust under agreement Dated August 21, … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Robert W. Starbeck, individually, and As Trustee of the Arthur C. Starbeck Trust under agreement Dated August 21, … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
10 interference with a contractual relationship requires five elements: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) the alleged wrongdoer’s knowledge of the contract; (3) intentional procurement of its breach; (4) without justification; and (5) damages.” Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Hugh McTavish, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Although in some circumstances a person who is not a party to a contract can be liable for interfering 4 with the contract, Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc., she generally cannot be liable for actually breaching the contract, see Mon-Ray, Inc. v. Granite Re, Inc., rev. denied (Minn. June 29 , 2004) (stating the general rule that “nonparties to a contract acquire no rights or obligations under it”).
Allison Catherine Buckner, Minn. 2023
Generally, Minnesota follows the “American rule” that “prevents a party from shifting its attorney fees to it s adversary without a specific contract or statutory authorization.” Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc.
Estate of: Stephen D. King, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc.
Sunlight Senior Living I LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
required, we focus narrowly on whether Bao Vang had constructive knowledge of the contract provision that she was a seller affiliate of the sale agreement.8 A party has constructive knowledge if they possess “knowledge of facts which, if followed by reasonable inquiry, would have led to a complete disclosure of the contractual relations and rights of the parties.” Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc., (citing Swaney v. Crawley, 191 N.W.
Tuckborough Farm Homeowners Association, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc.
Amano McGann, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc.
Fr. William Graham, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc ., (articulating five elements of tortious-interference claim).
Pamela Maslowski, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc.
St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Carter 899 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Carter 899 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc., (providing that court may “award attorney fees as damages if the defendant’s tortious act thrusts or projects the plaintiff into litigation with a third party”).
Hearing Associates, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Noncompete agreements that prohibit an employee from competing with the employer after the employment has ended “are looked upon with disfavor, cautiously considered, and carefully scrutinized.” Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc. , (quotation omitted).
City Center Commons, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A cause of action for tortious interference with a contractual relationship requires five elements: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) the alleged wrongdoer’s knowledge of the contract; (3) intentional procurement of its breach; (4) without justification; and (5) damages.” Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Cheri Glassick v. Wells Federal Bank, Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Northwest Title Agency, Inc., Tim Breuer, Manufacturers Bank … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Cheri Glassick v. Wells Federal Bank, Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Northwest Title Agency, Inc., Tim Breuer, Manufacturers Bank … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Under this third-party litigation exception, a district court is permitted to award attorney fees as damages “if the defendant’s tortious act thrusts or projects the plaintiff into litigation with a third party.” Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc., (citation omitted).
Equity Residential Holdings, LLC v. Gerald Koenig Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Equity Residential Holdings, LLC v. Gerald Koenig Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Kallok 3 v. Medtronic, Inc., (analyzing an exception to the American Rule).
Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A. v. Gene Rechtzigel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A. v. Gene Rechtzigel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
19 In Minnesota, the recovery of attorney fees is governed by the American rule, which “is that attorney fees are not recoverable in litigation unless there is a specific contract permitting or a statute authorizing such recovery.” Dunn v. Nat’l Beverage Corp., (quotation omitted); see Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc., (referring to this rule as “[t]he American rule”).
The Janine M. Hirt Trust v. Neils, Franz, Chirhart, Hultgren & Evenson, P.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Janine M. Hirt Trust v. Neils, Franz, Chirhart, Hultgren & Evenson, P.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, e.g., Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc.
Sysdyne Corporation v. Brian Rousslang 860 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 2015
Sysdyne Corporation v. Brian Rousslang 860 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 2015
The court of appeals affirmed, citing our decision in Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc., for the proposition that “a party who relies on the advice of outside counsel may be justified in interfering with a contractual relationship.” WL 902713, at *4 (Minn. App. Mar.
Moore v. Hoff 821 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Moore v. Hoff 821 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
See Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc., (stating that “[wjhether interference is justified is ordinarily a factual determination of what is reasonable conduct under the circumstances,” and “the burden of proving justification is on the defendant”).
Marn v. Fairview Pharmacy Services LLC 756 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marn v. Fairview Pharmacy Services LLC 756 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc.
Metge v. Central Neighborhood Improvement Ass'n 649 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Metge v. Central Neighborhood Improvement Ass'n 649 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
at 505 (emphasis added); see Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc., (stating that its holding in Nordling was “that third party ‘meddlers’ should not be permitted to interfere with an at-will employment agreement”).
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. Minnesota Twins Partnership 638 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. Minnesota Twins Partnership 638 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc.
Irwin v. Surdyk's Liquor 599 N.W.2d 132 Minn. 1999
Irwin v. Surdyk's Liquor 599 N.W.2d 132 Minn. 1999
See, e.g., Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc., (dealing with tortious interference of contract claim, yet still not applying the American Rule); Fownes v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 310 Minn. 540, 542 , (dealing with successful shareholder writ of mandamus, not applying American Rule); Benson Coop.
Osborne v. Chapman 574 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 1998
Osborne v. Chapman 574 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 1998
“[T]his court has always been exceedingly cautious when awarding attorney fees as damages.” Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by