Issue: Under Minnesota law, is a non‑compete clause in a professional contract valid, and not a form of unlawful fee-splitting?
| Area of Law: | Business Organizations & Contracts |
| Keywords: | Non‑compete; Validity; Fee-splitting |
| Jurisdiction: | Minnesota |
| Cited Cases: | 298 N.W.2d 127; 367 N.W.2d 556; 772 N.W.2d 528 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 03/01/2012 |
No cases were located that held that a non-compete clause is not fee-splitting. However, the following cases generally support the validity of reasonable non-competition clauses that are supported by valid consideration, including in some cases non-compete clauses that contain liquidated damages provisions:
Davies & Davies Agency, Inc. v. Buckingham, 298 N.W.2d 127 (Minn. 1980)
Medtronic, Inc. v. Hughes, No. A10-998 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2011)
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. FLS Transp., Inc., 772 N.W.2d 528 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)
Potter v. Durkin, No. C5-99-1206 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2000)
Dean Van Horn Consulting Assocs., Inc. v. Wold, 367 N.W.2d 556 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
[…]