Career Resources, Inc. v. Pearson Candy Co.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
NIERENGARTEN, Judge.
The appellant asserts the district court erred as a matter of law by concluding an employee was not terminated within thirty days and by concluding the respondent employment search firm is entitled to its placement fee. We reverse.
FACTS
Respondent Career Resources, Inc., an employment search firm, entered into an agreement with appellant Pearson Candy Company (Pearson) to place Career Resources’ client, Jeffrey Anderson, with Pearson; Pearson agreed to hire Anderson as a programmer analyst. Pearson was entitled to recover the placement fee from Career Resources if…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Indianhead Truck Line, Inc. v. Hvidsten Transport, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- Nelson v. SandkampSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- Wm. Lindeke Land Co. v. KalmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
- Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railroad v. St. Paul Mercury-Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- Nebola v. Minnesota Iron Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Jorgensen v. KnutsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- In Re the Marriage of OppCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
- Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission v. General Mills, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990
- Jorgensen v. KnutsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- Smigla v. SchnellCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996