Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 11.15 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Repealed, 1980 c 607 art 14 s 48]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1953–1992 · leading case: Petro v. Martin Baking Co., 58 N.W.2d 731 (Minn. 1953).
Petro v. Martin Baking Co., 58 N.W.2d 731 (Minn. 1953). “In 1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, § 11.15(a), the following is stated: "The great majority of jurisdictions which have considered the question of aggression apart from express statutory defenses have held that the aggressor in an admittedly work-connected fight cannot…”
Multi-Tech Sys., Inc. v. Hayes Microcomputer Prods., Inc., 800 F. Supp. 825 (D. Minnesota 1992). “Altman, Unfair Competition, Trademark and Monopolies, § 11.15 at 48 (4th Ed. 1981) (in common law product disparagement actions “[t]he complaint must refer with specificity, to the customers who have ceased to do business with the plaintiff because of the disparaging statements.”
— Minn. Stat. § 11.15(a) — 1 case
Petro v. Martin Baking Co., 58 N.W.2d 731 (Minn. 1953). “In 1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, § 11.15(a), the following is stated: "The great majority of jurisdictions which have considered the question of aggression apart from express statutory defenses have held that the aggressor in an admittedly work-connected fight cannot…”
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.