Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Pine River State Bank v. Mettille, 333 N.W.2d 622.

196 citing documents.

Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC 685 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2004
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC 685 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2004
we said that “[wjhere the hiring is for an indefinite term, * * * the employment is said to be ‘at-will.’ This means that the employer can summarily dismiss the employee for any reason or no reason * * *.” The July Agreement does not express a definite termination date.
Hayes v. K-Mart Corp. 665 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Hayes v. K-Mart Corp. 665 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
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
By staying on the job when he was free to leave, appellant supplied “the necessary consideration for the offer.” Id.; (holding that when the employee “retains employment with knowledge of new or changed conditions, the new or changed conditions may become a contractual obligation”).
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2002
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2002
Gunderson v. Alliance of Computer Professionals, Inc. 628 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Gunderson v. Alliance of Computer Professionals, Inc. 628 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 616 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 2000
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 616 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 2000
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999
Zellman Ex Rel. M.Z. v. Independent School District No. 2758 594 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Zellman Ex Rel. M.Z. v. Independent School District No. 2758 594 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Current Technology Concepts, Inc. v. Irie Enterprises, Inc. 530 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 1995
Current Technology Concepts, Inc. v. Irie Enterprises, Inc. 530 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 1995
a (1981) (“A single performance or return promise may thus furnish consideration for any number of promises.”); (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 80, cmt.
Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc. 526 N.W.2d 369 Minn. 1995
Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc. 526 N.W.2d 369 Minn. 1995
Brown v. Tonka Corp. 519 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Brown v. Tonka Corp. 519 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Ward v. Employee Development Corp. 516 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Ward v. Employee Development Corp. 516 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
see also Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y., (applying Pine River analysis); Hunt v. IBM Mid Am.
Midwest Motor Express, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local 120 494 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Midwest Motor Express, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local 120 494 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Spanier v. TCF Bank Savings 495 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Spanier v. TCF Bank Savings 495 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Lindgren v. Harmon Glass Co. 489 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Lindgren v. Harmon Glass Co. 489 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Pedro v. Pedro 489 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Pedro v. Pedro 489 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
*803 the supreme court explained that the court must ascertain the intent of the parties to the employment contract.
Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc. 483 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1992
Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc. 483 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1992
Feges claims that the progressive discipline policy outlined in Policy 445 of the HRPM constituted a
Campbell v. Leaseway Customized Transport, Inc. 484 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Campbell v. Leaseway Customized Transport, Inc. 484 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
David L. Campbell appeals a judgment entered upon directed verdict in his suit for wrongful termination and breach of contract against his former employer, respondent Leaseway Customized Transport, Inc. Campbell claimed Leaseway’s employee handbook constituted a
Nordling v. Northern States Power Co. 478 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1991
Nordling v. Northern States Power Co. 478 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1991
Michaelson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 474 N.W.2d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Michaelson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 474 N.W.2d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
When an employee is hired for an indefinite amount of time, employment is considered “at-will.”
Taubman v. Prospect Drilling & Sawing, Inc. 469 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Taubman v. Prospect Drilling & Sawing, Inc. 469 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
-27 (Minn.1983) (if offer and acceptance, there may be unilateral contract; when hiring is for indefinite term, it is “at will”); -20 (Minn.App.1989) (promise of employment enforceable if requirements met for unilateral contract; absent sufficient facts, employment is presume
Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc. 465 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc. 465 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Nordling v. Northern States Power Co. 465 N.W.2d 81 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Pedro v. Pedro 463 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Pedro v. Pedro 463 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Minnesota law has long established that when the duration of employment is for an indefinite term, the employment is “at-will.”
Holman v. CPT CORP. 457 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Holman v. CPT CORP. 457 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Knudsen v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1990