Legal Opinion

Ottman v. Fadden

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided March 10, 1998No. C6-97-1713PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SHORT, Judge.

In a common law defamation action brought against a former employer, Thomas W. Ottman argues his claims have only a tenuous link to his employment and thus, are not subject to the compulsory arbitration provision of the securities industry standard U-4 registration agreement. Finding the employer’s two allegedly defamatory internal memoranda related to Ottman’s professional status and his performance as a stockbroker, the trial court granted the employer’s motion to compel arbitration. Ottman filed his statement of claim with the National Association of Securities Dealers…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
  3. At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. 301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condominium Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
  2. Champion Auto Sales, LLC v. Polaris Sales Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2013
  3. Stiglich Construction, Inc. v. LarsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
  4. Alexander v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club LLCCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002
  5. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API