Notable Opinions: Week of July 27, 2026

Noncompete Provision

The plaintiffs appealed summary judgment after their antitrust claims were dismissed. Matt Goforth’s dealer agreement with the defendant included a noncompete clause covering both him and his wife, Malinda. After Matt declined to renew the agreement, the defendant initiated arbitration to enforce the noncompete. The plaintiffs later filed a second arbitration alleging antitrust violations, but the arbitrator ruled those claims should have been raised in the first proceeding. The district court agreed the claims were compulsory counterclaims, and the appellate court affirmed, holding the antitrust claims arose from the initial arbitration and should have been asserted then.

Goforth v. Transform Holdco, LLC, 8th Circuit

Property Insurance

The plaintiff appealed summary judgment in favor of its property insurer after hail damaged roofs on several properties. The district court ruled the damage was excluded as cosmetic under the insurance policy. The appellate court disagreed, holding the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that the hail damage weakened the roofs’ ability to withstand wind and snow, creating a factual issue as to whether the roofs’ function was impaired and coverage applied. The court vacated the judgment and remanded. Judge Loken dissented, arguing existing precedent supported enforcing the cosmetic-damage exclusion and affirming the district court.

Cannon Falls Area Schools v. The Hanover American Insurance Company, 8th Circuit

Restitution

The defendant appealed a restitution order after pleading guilty to second-degree intentional murder under a plea agreement requiring payment of an unspecified amount of restitution. The Court of Appeals held that the district court abused its discretion by ordering $7,500 in restitution without considering the defendant’s income, financial resources, and obligations as required by Minnesota law. The court ruled that agreeing to pay unspecified restitution in a plea agreement does not relieve the district court of its duty to evaluate the defendant’s financial circumstances. The restitution order was reversed and remanded.

A25-1404 State v. Garrett, Court of Appeals

See all of the week’s Opinion Digests for the Minnesota Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and the 8th Circuit here.