In Gieseke v. IDCA, Gieseke formed a company to compete with his old employer and worked with one of the former owners of his old employer in the new company. His former employer moved some of the equipment of the new company and changed its mailing address without permission of Gieseke or his partner. When Gieseke sued, the courts held that the former employer was not liable for improper interference as that tort is not recognized in Minnesota.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

In Gieseke v. IDCA, Inc., the court did recognize the tort of improper interference with a contractual relationship or prospective contractual relationship. The case involved Gieseke suing his former employer for interference, and the courts did not dismiss the claim on the basis that such a tort is not recognized in Minnesota. Instead, the case addressed the elements required to prove such a tort.

In Gieseke V