14 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pine River State Bank v. Mettillegreen2 sentences2017In relation to employment contracts, the Minnesota Supreme Court explained in Pine River State Bank v. Mettille that the rule of at-will employment is a rule of construction and that “cases which reason that the at-will rule takes precedence over even explicit job termination restraints, simply because the contract is of indefinite duration, misapply the at-will rule of construction as a rule of substantive limitation on contract formation.” 333 N.W.2d 622, 628 (Minn. 1983). 2016Under the at-will doctrine, “an employer may discharge an employee for ‘any reason or no reason’ and ,. ah employee is ‘under no obligation to remain on the job.’ ” Id. (quoting Pine River State Bank v. Mettille, 333 N.W.2d 622, 627 (Minn.1983)). | 5 | 7 |
Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc.green2 sentences1989See Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc., 306 N.W.2d 114 (Minn.1981) (employer revoked job offer despite employee’s resignation from prior job and rejection of other job offer). 1989See Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc., 306 N.W.2d 114, 116 (Minn.1981). | 3 | 3 |
Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Servicesgreen2 sentences2016Under the at-will doctrine, “an employer may discharge an employee for ‘any reason or no reason’ and . . . an employee is ‘under no obligation to remain on the job.’” Id. (quoting Pine River State Bank v. Mettille, 333 N.W.2d 622, 627 (Minn. 1983)). 2016Under the at-will doctrine, “an employer may discharge an employee for ‘any reason or no reason’ and ,. ah employee is ‘under no obligation to remain on the job.’ ” Id. (quoting Pine River State Bank v. Mettille, 333 N.W.2d 622, 627 (Minn.1983)). | 1 | 2 |
Berube v. Fashion Centre, Ltd.green1 sentence2006See, e.g., Gantt v. Sentry Ins., 1 Cal.4th 1083 , 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874 , 824 P.2d 680, 684 (1992) (“[T]he [public] policy must be fundamental, substantial and well established at the time of the discharge.” (quotations omitted)), abrogated on other grounds by Green v. Ralee Eng’g Co., 19 Cal.4th 66 , 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16 , 960 P.2d 1046 (1998); Berube v. Fashion Centre, Ltd., 771 P.2d 1033, 1043 (Utah 1989) (holding that the court would recognize only those public policies that “are so substantial and fundamental that there can be virtually no question as to their importance for promotion of the pub | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Ralee Engineering Co.green2 sentences2006See, e.g., Gantt v. Sentry Ins., 1 Cal.4th 1083 , 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874 , 824 P.2d 680, 684 (1992) (“[T]he [public] policy must be fundamental, substantial and well established at the time of the discharge.” (quotations omitted)), abrogated on other grounds by Green v. Ralee Eng’g Co., 19 Cal.4th 66 , 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16 , 960 P.2d 1046 (1998); Berube v. Fashion Centre, Ltd., 771 P.2d 1033, 1043 (Utah 1989) (holding that the court would recognize only those public policies that “are so substantial and fundamental that there can be virtually no question as to their importance for promotion of the pub 2006See, e.g., Gantt v. Sentry Ins., 1 Cal.4th 1083 , 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874 , 824 P.2d 680, 684 (1992) (“[T]he [public] policy must be fundamental, substantial and well established at the time of the discharge.” (quotations omitted)), abrogated on other grounds by Green v. Ralee Eng’g Co., 19 Cal.4th 66 , 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16 , 960 P.2d 1046 (1998); Berube v. Fashion Centre, Ltd., 771 P.2d 1033, 1043 (Utah 1989) (holding that the court would recognize only those public policies that “are so substantial and fundamental that there can be virtually no question as to their importance for promotion of the pub | 1 | 1 |
Gantt v. Sentry Insurancegreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., Gantt v. Sentry Ins., 1 Cal.4th 1083 , 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874 , 824 P.2d 680, 684 (1992) (“[T]he [public] policy must be fundamental, substantial and well established at the time of the discharge.” (quotations omitted)), abrogated on other grounds by Green v. Ralee Eng’g Co., 19 Cal.4th 66 , 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16 , 960 P.2d 1046 (1998); Berube v. Fashion Centre, Ltd., 771 P.2d 1033, 1043 (Utah 1989) (holding that the court would recognize only those public policies that “are so substantial and fundamental that there can be virtually no question as to their importance for promotion of the pub 2006See, e.g., Gantt v. Sentry Ins., 1 Cal.4th 1083 , 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874 , 824 P.2d 680, 684 (1992) (“[T]he [public] policy must be fundamental, substantial and well established at the time of the discharge.” (quotations omitted)), abrogated on other grounds by Green v. Ralee Eng’g Co., 19 Cal.4th 66 , 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16 , 960 P.2d 1046 (1998); Berube v. Fashion Centre, Ltd., 771 P.2d 1033, 1043 (Utah 1989) (holding that the court would recognize only those public policies that “are so substantial and fundamental that there can be virtually no question as to their importance for promotion of the pub | 1 | 1 |
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.green1 sentence2006Corp., 396 N.W.2d 588, 592 (Minn.App.1986), affd, 408 N.W.2d 569 (Minn.1987). | 1 | 1 |
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLCgreen1 sentence2005See Rosenberg, 685 N.W.2d at 326 (holding that employment was at will despite a reference to events in the employment listing that could be used- as a termination date); Harris, 421 N.W.2d at 354 . (holding that a buy-back agreement for company stock in the event of termination did not modify at-will employment status). | 1 | 1 |
Skagerberg v. Blandin Paper Co.green1 sentence2001See Degen, 260 Minn. at *183 429-30, 110 N.W.2d at 867 (concluding that acceptance of salary reduction, forbearance of employment, and contributions to pension plan were insufficient to constitute additional consideration); Skagerberg , 197 Minn, at 300-03, 266 N.W. at 876-78 (concluding that forbearance of a lucrative consulting practice to accept new position did not constitute sufficient additional consideration to create implied contract limiting discharge to good cause); Dumas, 380 N.W.2d at 546 (stating that consideration for a promise of permanent employment must be regarded by the part | 1 | 1 |
Dumas v. Kessler & Maguire Funeral Home, Inc.green1 sentence2001See Degen, 260 Minn. at *183 429-30, 110 N.W.2d at 867 (concluding that acceptance of salary reduction, forbearance of employment, and contributions to pension plan were insufficient to constitute additional consideration); Skagerberg , 197 Minn, at 300-03, 266 N.W. at 876-78 (concluding that forbearance of a lucrative consulting practice to accept new position did not constitute sufficient additional consideration to create implied contract limiting discharge to good cause); Dumas, 380 N.W.2d at 546 (stating that consideration for a promise of permanent employment must be regarded by the part | 1 | 1 |
Degen v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc.green1 sentence2001See Degen, 260 Minn. at *183 429-30, 110 N.W.2d at 867 (concluding that acceptance of salary reduction, forbearance of employment, and contributions to pension plan were insufficient to constitute additional consideration); Skagerberg , 197 Minn, at 300-03, 266 N.W. at 876-78 (concluding that forbearance of a lucrative consulting practice to accept new position did not constitute sufficient additional consideration to create implied contract limiting discharge to good cause); Dumas, 380 N.W.2d at 546 (stating that consideration for a promise of permanent employment must be regarded by the part | 1 | 1 |
Littell v. Evening Star Newspaper Co.green1 sentence1983See Littell v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 120 F.2d 36, 37 (D.C.Cir.1941); Drzewiecki v. H & R Block, Inc., 24 Cal.App.3d 695, 703-04 , 101 Cal.Rptr. 169, 174 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
Drzewiecki v. H & R BLOCK, INC.green2 sentences1983See Littell v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 120 F.2d 36, 37 (D.C.Cir.1941); Drzewiecki v. H & R Block, Inc., 24 Cal.App.3d 695, 703-04 , 101 Cal.Rptr. 169, 174 (1972). 1983See Littell v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 120 F.2d 36, 37 (D.C.Cir.1941); Drzewiecki v. H & R Block, Inc., 24 Cal.App.3d 695, 703-04 , 101 Cal.Rptr. 169, 174 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. National Beef Packing Co.green2 sentences1983See, e.g., Johnson v. National Beef Packing Co., 220 Kan. 52 , 551 P.2d 779 (1976); Shaw v. S.S. 1983See, e.g., Johnson v. National Beef Packing Co., 220 Kan. 52 , 551 P.2d 779 (1976); Shaw v. S.S. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pedro v. Pedrogreen1 sentence2001But see Pedro I, 463 N.W.2d at 289-90 (suggesting that a close-corporation shareholder’s reasonable expectation of employment with the corporation, rather than a contractual agreement, is an appropriate basis for a wrongful-termination claim despite the at-will doctrine); Schlafge, supra, at 1089-96 (concluding that the Pedro I court “extended the law too far in its efforts to compensate a sympathetic plaintiff’). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nelson v. Productive Alternatives, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016Our conclusion is reinforced by the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Nelson v. Productive Alternatives, Inc., 715 N.W.2d 452 (Minn.2006), considering whether the Minnesota Whistleblower Act abrogated the public-policy exception to the at-will doctrine. 2016The supreme court in Nelson introduced the at-will doctrine and noted that “there are several statutory exceptions to the at-will rule.” Id. at 454 . | 4 | 2012–2017 |
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.
green
2 sentences2006Though there are several statutory exceptions to the at-will rule, 1 we have only recognized a common-law cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy once, in Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 408 N.W.2d 569 . 2006Corp., 396 N.W.2d 588, 592 (Minn.App.1986), affd, 408 N.W.2d 569 (Minn.1987). | 2 | 1989–2006 |
Harris v. Mardan Business Systems, Inc.
green
1 sentence2005See Rosenberg, 685 N.W.2d at 326 (holding that employment was at will despite a reference to events in the employment listing that could be used- as a termination date); Harris, 421 N.W.2d at 354 . (holding that a buy-back agreement for company stock in the event of termination did not modify at-will employment status). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hunt v. IBM Mid America Employees Federal Credit Union
green
1 sentence1988Hunt, 384 N.W.2d at 856 n. 7. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.