Legal Opinion

Medtronic, Inc. v. Shope

District Court, D. Minnesota

Decided March 19, 2001No. 0:99-cv-00880PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

ROSENBAUM, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The facts are not in dispute, and the matter turns on a pure question of law. Accordingly, this case is ripe for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

I. Factual Background

The relevant facts are few and brief. Plaintiff, Medtronic, Inc., employed defendant, Gary Shope, to sell sophisticated medical technology. Although defendant was well compensated for his work, plaintiff wished to further compensate him, and at the same time attempt to dissuade him from…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Harold E. ADAMSON, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ARMCO, INC., Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1995
  2. Levin v. C.O.M.B. Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
  3. James M. Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc., James M. Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1997
  4. Stowman v. Carlson Companies, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988
  5. Bernard Cavegn v. Twin City Pipe Trades Pension PlanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2000

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hamann v. Park Nicollet ClinicCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
  2. Sipe v. STS Manufacturing, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API