Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kjesbo v. Ricks, 517 N.W.2d 585.

31 citing documents.

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
A defendant is justified in challenged conduct interfering with a contract when he “asserts in good faith a legally protected interest of his own believing that his interest may otherwise be impaired or destroyed by the performance of the contract or transaction.” (quotation omitted).
A Business Solutions Company LLC, d/b/a AFOX Solutions, LLC, a LGBTE Company, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The elements of a tortious- interference-with-contract claim are: “(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.” (quotation omitted).
Sunlight Senior Living I LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
To convince us otherwise
Fr. William Graham, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Whether interference is justified is an issue of fact, and the relevant inquiry is what conduct is reasonable under the circumstances.1
Generations Law Office, Ltd., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
621, 623 (Minn. 1915); see also Kjesbo v. Ricks , n.3 (Minn. 1994) (applying the same knowledge requirement in dicta).
Stephani Martinsen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citation and quotations omitted).
Excel Manufacturing, Inc. v. Todd Wondrow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Excel Manufacturing, Inc. v. Todd Wondrow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Tortious Interference With Contract “A cause of action for wrongful interference with a contractual relationship requires: (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.” (quotation omitted).
John Stratton v. Pop Dental, LLC, Karl Dexheimer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John Stratton v. Pop Dental, LLC, Karl Dexheimer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 585, 588 n.3 (Minn. 1994) (“It is enough if the defendant had knowledge of facts which, if followed by reasonable inquiry, would have led to complete disclosure of the contractual relations and rights of the parties.”).
Sysdyne Corporation v. Brian Rousslang 860 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 2015
Sysdyne Corporation v. Brian Rousslang 860 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 2015
Moore v. Hoff 821 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Moore v. Hoff 821 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“A cause of action for wrongful interference with a contractual relationship *596 requires: (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.” (quotation omitted).
Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc. 672 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc. 672 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
A person does not interfere with a contract when he “asserts in good faith a legally protected interest of his own believing that his interest may otherwise be impaired or destroyed by the performance of the contract or transaction.” (quotation omitted).
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
“Ordinarily, whether interference is justified is an *501 issue of fact, and the test is what is reasonable conduct under the circumstances.”
Howard v. Minnesota Timberwolves Basketball Ltd. Partnership 636 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Howard v. Minnesota Timberwolves Basketball Ltd. Partnership 636 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Harman v. Heartland Food Company 614 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Harman v. Heartland Food Company 614 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(quoting Furlev Sales and Assoc.
Sterling Capital Advisors, Inc. v. Herzog 575 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Sterling Capital Advisors, Inc. v. Herzog 575 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(listing elements of claim for tortious interference with contract).
Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc. 573 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1998
Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc. 573 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1998
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
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Singleton v. Christ the Servant Evangelical Lutheran Church 541 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Singleton v. Christ the Servant Evangelical Lutheran Church 541 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 1996