Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “intentional procurement of [a] breach” is an element of a tortious-interference claim (quoting Kjesbo v. Ricks, 517 N.W.2d 585, 588 (Minn. 1994)
• 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”
• determining that Angeion’s interference was not justified because “Angeion did not utilize a reasonable inquiry in ascertaining” whether Kallok’s noncompete agreements prevented him from working at Angeion
• finding that plaintiff \easily established\ the procurement element where breaching employee was first to approach defendant about a job, and nothing in the record indicated defendant pressured employee to accept it
• finding that plaintiff “easily established” the procurement element where breaching employee was first to approach defendant about a job, and nothing in the record indicated defendant pressured employee to accept it
• holding recovery for tortious interference can include costs of litigation to enforce contract

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).