Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1909 (2026)

Applicability and construction of act.

✓ 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

445.1909 Applicability and construction of act.

Sec. 9.

This act shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this act among states enacting it.

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

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Giasson Aerospace Sci., Inc. v. RCO Eng'g, Inc., 680 F. Supp. 2d 830 (E.D. Mich. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Giasson Aerospace Sci., Inc. v. RCO Eng'g, Inc., 680 F. Supp. 2d 830 (E.D. Mich. 2010). · cites it 2× “Although this quote is from a Seventh Circuit case interpreting the Illinois Uniform Trade Secrets Act, section 9 of the MUTSA requires that the Act “be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of th[e] act among…”

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.”

Nagel Precision Inc. v. RnD Eng'g, LLC (In re RnD Eng'g, LLC), 546 B.R. 738 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2016). “5 (quoting MUTSA § 445.1909). . Nagel cannot rely on the Bankruptcy Code because "there is no statutory basis .”

Ford Motor Co. v. Intermotive, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2025). “§ 445.1909, and the leading trade secrets treatise states: Under the UTSA, exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees are available where the misappropriation was “willful,” i.”

Innovation Ventures LLC v. Liquid Mfg. LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “Moreover, we have reviewed plaintiff’s claims and found that defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there was no genuine issue of material fact that defendants did not tortiously 3 Because the purpose of the MUTSA is to “make uniform the law” with…”

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.