Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Polk v. Mutual Service Life Ins. Co.

344 N.W.2d 427 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Polk v. Mutual Service Life Ins. Co.

1 Citing case

  1. LTJ Enterprises, Inc. v. Custom Marketing Co.

    168 F. Supp. 3d 1202 (D. Minn. 2016)   Cited 4 times
    Finding that an expert who had examined the accused device, the patented device, the patent, and the court's claim construction order had "examined the items most germane to forming an infringement opinion in case" and thus his opinion was based on sufficient facts and data

    In Minnesota, “[t]he general rule is that contracts having no fixed term are terminable at will by either party.” Polk v. Mut. Serv. Life Ins. Co., 344 N.W.2d 427, 430 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). There is no evidence that the exception to the rule—unilateral termination is unlawful when the contract provides for continued performance “as long as” one party performs satisfactorily—would apply. Minn. Deli Provisions, Inc. v. Boar's Head Provisions Co., Inc., 606 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir.2010) (interpreting Minnesota law).