I found 12 Minnesota Court of Appeals decisions on noncompetes, non-solicits, and trade secrets filed since July 1, 2023, the day Minnesota’s noncompete ban took effect. None of them applies Minn. Stat. § 181.988 to void a covenant. Two mention the statute, Yuan and Continua. Yuan says the section “does not apply here” because it “applies to contracts or agreements made on or after July 1, 2023,” and Continua notes, as the district court had, that the sale behind the agreements “occurred prior to the effective date.”

Covenants still reached the courts, and some were enforced. The Court of Appeals affirmed a temporary injunction enforcing noncompetes in franchise agreements (Ellie Fam). It also affirmed temporary injunctions, narrowed by the trial judge, enforcing employment agreements signed before the ban (Continua). Those agreements allowed assignment to a buyer of the business and were assigned in a June 2023 asset sale. For a covenant not to compete that the 2023 statute covers, § 181.988, subd. 2(a), instead provides that it “is void and unenforceable,” unless subdivision 2(b)’s exception for a covenant “agreed upon during the sale of a business” or “in anticipation of the dissolution of a business” applies. In Ellie Fam and Continua, the court reviewed a ruling made before trial. It also affirmed a judgment after trial enforcing a noncompete in an LLC operating agreement the members executed when they formed the company in 2016 (Absolute Sports); the opinion does not mention § 181.988. All three opinions are nonprecedential.

Only one of the 12 decisions is precedential, and its holdings concern other points. The Minnesota Supreme Court has issued no decision in this set. On October 21, 2026, it accepted a federal court’s certified question and reformulated it. It asks whether a restrictive covenant is unenforceable “as against public policy” when it bars a financial advisor from continuing to serve a client “with whom the financial advisor is in a fiduciary relationship,” even when the advisor “has not solicited the client or otherwise influenced the client’s decision.”

In the decisions I found, the appellate courts have not yet applied the ban to an agreement between an employer and an employee signed after July 1, 2023. The statute defines an employee to include independent contractors. Covenants, including agreements signed before that date (among them a 2016 LLC operating agreement), franchise covenants, and non-solicits, are still being litigated and, on some records, enforced. Each figure on this page is a count of public decisions, refreshed yearly. It sits within my Minnesota employment law work for business owners.

What Noncompete Cases Has the Minnesota Court of Appeals Decided Since July 1, 2023?

The Minnesota Court of Appeals issued the 12 decisions below; the Minnesota Supreme Court issued none. In the first seven, a covenant or trade-secret claim was part of what the court decided. In the last five, the dispute sat in the background and the court decided something else, such as personal jurisdiction or indemnification. Several involve non-solicitation clauses, and how a noncompete differs from a non-solicitation agreement matters because the ban treats them differently. Each case name links to the court’s opinion.

Case Court Filed Docket Status Covenant type What the court did
Dynan v. Thrivent Financial for Lutherans Minn. Ct. App. March 4, 2024 A23-0997 Nonprecedential Trade secret Affirmed dismissal of a former student’s trade-secret and other claims over a 2009 class marketing plan as filed too late.
Metropolitan Transportation Network, Inc. v. Collaborative Student Transportation of Minnesota, LLC, 6 N.W.3d 771 Minn. Ct. App. April 15, 2024 A23-0644 Precedential Non-solicit (18 months, business to business) Affirmed summary judgment against school-transportation contractors whose antitrust claims, including a challenge to a nonsolicitation clause, lacked evidence of a restraint of trade; the clause’s enforceability was not decided.
American Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Inc. v. Yuan Minn. Ct. App. August 12, 2024 A24-0003 Nonprecedential Noncompete and non-solicit (2018 employment agreement, then a stipulated injunction) Reversed the contempt sanction order against an acupuncturist for treating the clinic’s patients (an $18,000 fine, closure of his clinic until payment, and a restart of the 30-month compliance period when the clinic reopened), because the district court imposed criminal-contempt sanctions without following procedural safeguards.
Absolute Sports Cards, LLC v. Thornton Minn. Ct. App. September 23, 2024 A24-0215 Nonprecedential Noncompete among LLC members (2016 operating agreement) Affirmed that a clause exempting a member’s existing business from the members’ noncompete was void as manifestly unreasonable, and affirmed his expulsion and $67,198.48 in lost profits.
Bruber Financial Services, Inc. v. Arux Software, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. January 6, 2025 A24-0850 Nonprecedential Non-solicit (court injunction, not a contract clause) Affirmed refusal to dissolve an injunction against soliciting a licensee’s customers, because the judge’s guidance that it also barred sales to customers who approach on their own only clarified it.
Continua Interiors of Minnesota, LLC v. Hess Minn. Ct. App. April 6, 2026 A25-1472, A25-1473 Nonprecedential Noncompete and confidentiality (employment agreements assigned in a June 2023 asset sale) Affirmed narrowed temporary injunctions, on agreements made before the 2023 statute took effect, against former employees who joined a competitor, holding on this record that the buyer could enforce the 12-month noncompete from the end of their employment with the buyer, relying on the agreements’ clause allowing assignment to “any person or entity that purchases substantially all of the assets and/or stock” of the seller.
Ellie Fam LLC v. Coelho Minn. Ct. App. April 13, 2026 A25-1515, A25-1517 Nonprecedential Noncompete (franchise agreements) Affirmed a temporary injunction enforcing franchise noncompetes against franchisees who left the system and kept operating the same clinics.
Twin City Underwriters, Inc. v. Heppner Insurance Agency, LLC Minn. Ct. App. September 3, 2024 A23-1385 Nonprecedential Noncompete (90-day clause, insurance subagent contract) Affirmed a jury verdict for a brokerage against a former subagent who diverted clients, except that two defendants were entitled to judgment; the clause’s enforceability was not decided.
SAF Holdings LLC v. CalPro ADAS Solutions LLC Minn. Ct. App. July 7, 2025 A24-1651, A24-1652 Nonprecedential Trade secret (third-party claim) Affirmed personal jurisdiction in Minnesota over three out-of-state third-party defendants facing claims that include trade-secret misappropriation; the merits were not decided.
City of Long Lake v. City of Orono Minn. Ct. App. August 25, 2025 A24-1206 Nonprecedential No-recruiting injunction (court order in a fire-services contract dispute between two cities) Affirmed a temporary injunction barring Orono from recruiting Long Lake’s firefighters, which Orono had opposed in part by citing Minnesota’s noncompete prohibition, and affirmed a $2,000 contempt fine for recruiting; it reversed the contempt finding for Orono’s planning of a possible future building on Orono’s land next to station 2.
Yang v. Azotic, LLC Minn. Ct. App. December 8, 2025 A25-0187 Nonprecedential Trade secret (employer’s dismissed suit) Affirmed denial of former employees’ request for indemnification from the company as premature while a related proceeding was unresolved.
Bay & Bay Transfer Co. Inc. v. Raetz Minn. Ct. App. June 1, 2026 A25-1345 Nonprecedential; review granted August 26, 2026 Noncompete and non-solicit (12-month employment clauses) Affirmed personal jurisdiction over the new employer, bound by the employee’s forum clause as a party closely related to the dispute; enforceability was not decided. The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review and stayed the case pending a related appeal listed under the pending cases.

What Have Minnesota Appellate Courts Said About the 2023 Noncompete Ban?

No Minnesota appellate decision I found has applied the ban to a covenant. Minn. Stat. § 181.988, subd. 2(a), makes “Any covenant not to compete contained in a contract or agreement” void. Subdivision 1(a) defines that term as “an agreement between an employee and employer that restricts the employee, after termination of the employment,” from certain work, and subdivision 1(c) defines an employee as “any individual who performs services for an employer, including independent contractors.” The definition excludes “a nondisclosure agreement, or agreement designed to protect trade secrets or confidential information,” and it excludes a nonsolicitation agreement. Subdivision 2(b) keeps a covenant enforceable when it “is agreed upon during the sale of a business,” and adds that the person selling the business, its partners, members, or shareholders, and the buyer “may agree on a temporary and geographically restricted covenant not to compete that will prohibit the seller of the business from carrying on a similar business within a reasonable geographic area and for a reasonable length of time.” It does the same for a covenant “agreed upon in anticipation of the dissolution of a business,” under which the partners, members, or shareholders of a partnership, limited liability company, or corporation “may agree that all or any number of the parties will not carry on a similar business within a reasonable geographic area where the business has been transacted.” The enacting law, 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 53, art. 6, § 1, states: “This section is effective July 1, 2023, and applies to contracts and agreements entered into on or after that date.” My Minnesota noncompete agreement ban page covers what the 2023 ban changed for employers.

Two decisions mention the statute, each in a footnote:

  1. Yuan (August 2024). The employment agreement was signed in 2018. The court wrote that the section “applies to contracts or agreements made on or after July 1, 2023, and thus does not apply here.”
  2. Continua (April 2026). The asset sale that assigned the employment agreements closed June 16, 2023. The court wrote: “As the district court noted, the sale occurred prior to the effective date of a recent statute limiting noncompetition agreements, which became effective July 1, 2023.”

A third decision, City of Long Lake, records that Orono cited Minnesota’s prohibition on noncompete agreements as a public-policy interest. The court did not cite the statute and held that the trial court did not err in weighing that factor for the injunction.

Which Decisions Upheld Orders Enforcing a Covenant?

Two 2026 decisions affirmed temporary injunctions that enforce a covenant, and a 2025 decision left a court-ordered non-solicit in place; each reviewed an order made before trial. A 2024 decision affirmed a judgment after trial that enforced a noncompete among the members of an LLC in a 2016 operating agreement. None of the four is precedential.

  • Ellie Fam (April 2026). Franchisees in Arizona and Nevada sent notices rescinding or terminating their franchise agreements, then kept operating the same clinics under new names. The court affirmed an injunction enforcing the franchise noncompetes. The district court found that the balance of harms favored the franchisees and that the remaining factors favored granting the injunction, and the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in that determination.
  • Continua (April 2026). The trial judge narrowed the noncompete before enforcing it. A footnote in the opinion, citing an earlier Minnesota Supreme Court decision, states: “In enforcing noncompete agreements, courts have the discretion to modify overly restrictive provisions.” For a covenant not to compete that § 181.988 covers, subdivision 2(a) instead provides that it “is void and unenforceable,” unless subdivision 2(b)’s exception for a covenant “agreed upon during the sale of a business” or “in anticipation of the dissolution of a business” applies. The orders barred the former employees from “soliciting or marketing CTI’s products or services to any Continua customer that the individual appellants worked with or to any known prospective customers of Continua,” from soliciting Continua employees to leave or to work with CTI, and from disclosing Continua’s confidential information. They also barred CTI, the competitor the employees joined, from using or sharing that information. The court cautioned that “it is possible that a different result could follow” if an employee’s work or the restricted territory had changed significantly after the sale.
  • Bruber (January 2025). The injunction came from the court, not from a contract clause. The court acknowledged that “solicit” suggests active initiation but deferred to the trial judge’s reading of the order.
  • Absolute Sports (September 2024). Section 11 of the LLC’s operating agreement “prohibits the members from competing with ASC during their tenure as members and for two years after their membership ends, detailing numerous categories of prohibited competitive conduct.” After a trial, the district court expelled a member who kept competing and awarded the company lost profits. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that “the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding $67,198.48 in damages for lost profits.”

In Yuan, the court reversed the contempt sanction order, which had fined the acupuncturist $18,000, ordered his clinic closed until payment, and directed that the 30-month compliance period would restart when the clinic reopened. It added: “Nothing in this opinion precludes future enforcement of the permanent injunction by conditions tied to Yuan’s compliance.” Yuan, Continua, and Absolute Sports involved agreements made before the ban, the situation covered on my page about noncompetes signed before the ban took effect.

How Much Weight Do These Decisions Carry?

Eleven of the 12 decisions are nonprecedential, so they do not bind other courts on the covenant questions they decide. Each carries a legend on its first page citing Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), which provides: “Nonprecedential opinions and order opinions are not binding authority except as law of the case, res judicata or collateral estoppel, but nonprecedential opinions may be cited as persuasive authority.”

In plain terms, a nonprecedential opinion settles the dispute between its own parties, and a lawyer in another case may cite it as an example of how a panel reasoned. The one precedential decision is Metropolitan Transportation Network. It holds that a verified complaint can support or oppose summary judgment when it meets the rule’s conditions. It also holds that Minnesota recognizes no claim for breach of an illusory contract. It did not decide whether the nonsolicitation clause was enforceable.

Which Minnesota Noncompete Cases Are Still Pending?

Four pending matters could add to this index. None had produced a decision as of November 13, 2026, and this page makes no prediction about any of them.

  1. A certified question in the Minnesota Supreme Court. In a federal suit over a financial advisor’s restrictive covenant, the federal district court certified a question in a written order on September 30, 2026. Under Minn. Stat. § 480.065, subd. 3, the Supreme Court “may answer a question of law certified to it by a court of the United States.” On October 21, 2026, it accepted the question (No. A26-1797) and reformulated it: “Is a restrictive covenant unenforceable as against public policy when the restrictive covenant bars a financial advisor from continuing to provide services to a client with whom the financial advisor is in a fiduciary relationship for a period of time after the financial advisor leaves an employer, even when the financial advisor has not solicited the client or otherwise influenced the client’s decision to continue to seek the financial advisor’s services?” Oral argument follows briefing, and the statute requires the court to state its answer “in a written opinion.”
  2. New-employer jurisdiction. On May 27, 2026, the Supreme Court granted review of the Court of Appeals decision in Medtronic, Inc. v. Lahn (No. A25-1009). That decision held a nonresident competitor subject to Minnesota jurisdiction in a suit over employment agreements with forum clauses. On August 26, 2026, the Supreme Court also granted review in Bay & Bay and stayed it “pending final disposition” of the Medtronic appeal.
  3. A second appeal in Yuan. No. A26-0755 was submitted to a panel without oral argument on September 16, 2026.
  4. A physician’s noncompete. No. A26-0507 is an appeal in a Duluth family physician’s suit over the noncompete in her 2013 employment agreement with her hospital employer, argued October 8, 2026. In February 2026, the St. Louis County District Court temporarily barred the hospital from enforcing the agreement’s noncompetition and non-solicitation provisions against her proposed direct primary care practice.

How Was This Count Built?

This index lists decisions I found, which is not a guarantee that it holds every decision. The searches covered Minnesota Court of Appeals and Minnesota Supreme Court opinions filed from July 1, 2023, through November 13, 2026.

  • Sources. The court’s own opinion search on mncourts.gov, the public Minnesota opinion pages on HallApproved.com, and a Westlaw search of Minnesota state cases. CourtListener returned leads only.
  • Terms. The searches included noncompete, non-solicit, not to compete, covenant not to solicit, restrictive covenant, trade secret, and the section numbers 181.988, 181.9881, and chapter 325C.
  • What counts. Precedential, nonprecedential, and order opinions. Special term orders on stays, scheduling, consolidation, and appealability are not counted, nor are opinions where a search term appeared only in passing.
  • Checks. Each row was read from the court’s PDF, and each row’s later history was checked on Westlaw on November 13, 2026. Of the 12 listed decisions, only Bay & Bay shows a grant of review.

District court rulings are outside these searches.

Did any Minnesota appeals court void a noncompete under the 2023 ban?

No, not in the 12 Minnesota Court of Appeals decisions I found from July 1, 2023, through November 13, 2026. Two of them mention Minn. Stat. § 181.988. In the Yuan case, the court said the statute does not apply because the employment agreement was signed in 2018. In the Continua case, the court noted that the business sale behind the agreements came before the statute’s effective date of July 1, 2023. The Minnesota Supreme Court has not yet issued a decision applying the statute.

Can a noncompete signed before July 1, 2023, still be enforced in Minnesota?

It can be, depending on the agreement and facts. The ban applies to contracts and agreements entered into on or after July 1, 2023. In April 2026, the Court of Appeals affirmed temporary injunctions enforcing employment agreements assignable to a business buyer and assigned in a June 2023 asset sale. The nonprecedential opinion says other facts could change the result. It says courts view these covenants ‘with disfavor and scrutinize them with care,’ quoting the Minnesota Supreme Court. It also quotes the Minnesota Supreme Court: ‘Breach of a covenant not to compete, standing alone, does not so readily indicate irreparable injury to the employer.’

Did a court enforce a noncompete in a franchise agreement?

Yes. In April 2026, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a temporary injunction enforcing the noncompete clauses in a franchisor’s agreements against franchisees in Arizona and Nevada. The franchisees had sent notices rescinding or terminating the agreements and kept operating the same clinics under new names. The opinion does not discuss Minn. Stat. § 181.988, and it is nonprecedential, so under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01 it is not binding authority except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Do these decisions bind Minnesota trial courts?

Mostly no. Eleven of the 12 decisions are nonprecedential. Under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), those opinions are not binding authority except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel, though a party may cite them as persuasive authority. The one precedential decision, Metropolitan Transportation Network, binds lower courts on verified complaints and illusory contracts, not on whether a covenant is enforceable.

Is the Minnesota Supreme Court reviewing a noncompete question?

Yes. On October 21, 2026, the Minnesota Supreme Court accepted a question certified by the federal district court in a suit over a financial advisor’s restrictive covenant (No. A26-1797). It asks whether a restrictive covenant is unenforceable as against public policy when it bars a financial advisor from continuing to serve a client in a fiduciary relationship. The question covers that bar even when the advisor has not solicited the client or otherwise influenced the client’s decision. Briefing comes first, then oral argument. The court has not decided the question.

Does this index include every Minnesota noncompete decision?

No. It lists the Minnesota Court of Appeals and Supreme Court decisions I found by searching named terms in three sources, filed from July 1, 2023, through November 13, 2026. It leaves out district court rulings, which these searches do not reach, and special term orders on stays, scheduling, consolidation, and appealability. A decision those searches missed would not appear here until the next yearly update.

Minnesota Noncompete Case Index

In the decisions I found since July 1, 2023, the Minnesota appellate courts have not used the ban to void a covenant. On their records, they have affirmed temporary injunctions enforcing franchise noncompetes and agreements signed before the ban, and a judgment after trial enforcing a noncompete among LLC members in a 2016 operating agreement. The certified question before the Minnesota Supreme Court, No. A26-1797, asks whether a restrictive covenant is unenforceable as against public policy when it bars a financial advisor from serving a client in a fiduciary relationship. The question covers that bar even when the advisor has not solicited or otherwise influenced the client. My Minnesota noncompete agreement FAQ answers owners’ questions about the agreements themselves, and the rest of my employment law practice covers the agreements behind these cases.

If you are writing, enforcing, or defending a covenant and want to know how these decisions bear on your agreement, email [email protected] with a brief description. I can start an intake and conflict check before you send any confidential documents.