Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 445 / Act 448 of 1998
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1901 (2026)

Short title.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT


Act 448 of 1998


445.1901 Short title.

Sec. 1.

    This act shall be known and may be cited as the "uniform trade secrets act".

History: 1998, Act 448, Imd. Eff. Dec. 30, 1998

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58 cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Kelly Servs. v. Eidnes, 530 F. Supp. 2d 940 (E.D. Mich. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kelly Servs. v. Eidnes, 530 F. Supp. 2d 940 (E.D. Mich. 2008). · cites it 5× “Plaintiff argues that Eidnes’s use and disclosure of its confidential information is enjoinable under the Michigan Uniform Trad Secrets Act (MUTSA), MCL § 445.1901 et seq. This act provides that a court can enjoin the actual or threatened misappropriation of trade secrets and…”
Wysong Corp. v. M.I. Indus., 412 F. Supp. 2d 612 (E.D. Mich. 2005). · cites it 2× “Displacement of Remedies by the MUTSA The defendants argue that the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1901 et seq., displaces the claims of conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and “palming off.”
Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. v. Furstenau, 368 F. Supp. 3d 1112 (E.D. Mich. 2019). · cites it 2× “("DTSA") and the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act, MCL § 445.1901, et seq. ("MUTSA") (Against Furstenau and BTX Detroit); Count IV - Tortious Interference (Against BTX Detroit); Count V - Aiding and Abetting (Against BTX Detroit); and Count VI - Common Law and Statutory…”
CMI Int'l, Inc. v. Intermet Int'l Corp., 649 N.W.2d 808 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “On June 24, 1999, CMI filed suit against defendants, seeking specific performance and alleging breach of contract, violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (utsa), MCL 445.1901 et seq., tortious interference with contractual relations, unjust enrichment and constructive trust,…”
Stryker Emp. Co., LL v. Jafar Abbas, 60 F.4th 372 (6th Cir. 2023). “Plaintiffs asserted two claims for relief: (1) breach of contract; and (2) misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 445.1901 , et seq. Plaintiffs alleged that Abbas’ breach of contract would cause it…”
Kelly Servs., Inc. v. Noretto, 495 F. Supp. 2d 645 (E.D. Mich. 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 445.1901, et seq. Kelly alleges that it faces a substantial risk that Noretto will unlawfully use Kelly’s client and customer information and trade secrets to Kelly’s competitive disadvantage.”
Compuware Corp. v. Serena Software Int'l, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 2d 816 (E.D. Mich. 1999). · cites it 2× “In 1998, the Michigan legislature adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1901 — .1910, in an effort "to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this act among the states enacting it.”
Delphi Auto. PLC v. Absmeier, 167 F. Supp. 3d 868 (E.D. Mich. 2016). “Breach of Contract Claim Plaintiffs first claim alleges that Defendant violated the Agreements’ terms involving confidentiality and non-competition obligations.”
Kelly Servs., Inc. v. Marzullo, 591 F. Supp. 2d 924 (E.D. Mich. 2008). · cites it 2× “However, Kelly anticipates that given Marzullo’s position with one of its competitors, it is inevitable that Marzullo will use or disclose Kelly’s confidential information and trade secrets.”
Herald Co., Inc. v. Tax Tribunal, 669 N.W.2d 862 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “We refer to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, MCL 445.1901 et seq., to provide us with a workable definition of what might be considered confidential information, i.”
United Rentals (North Am.), Inc. v. Keizer, 202 F. Supp. 2d 727 (W.D. Mich. 2002). · cites it 2× “This is a diversity action alleging six counts: (1) breach of employment agreement; (2) violation of the Michigan Trade Secrets Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1901 et seq.; (3) tortious interference with business relations; (4) tortious interference with contract; (5) civil…”
Degussa Admixtures, Inc. v. Douglas Burnett & Sika Corp., 277 F. App'x 530 (6th Cir. 2008). “In particular, Degussa alleged that Burnett breached his confidentiality agreement with Degussa, that Sika induced that breach and that Burnett and Sika violated the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1901 et seq. Degussa sought a temporary restraining…”
Show all 58 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.