Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 17. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 17.46 (2026)

Short Title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Laws 1991, chapter 309, sections 4 to 16, may be cited as the Aquaculture Development Act.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2023 · leading case: Banbury v. Omnitrition Int'l, Inc., 533 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Banbury v. Omnitrition Int'l, Inc., 533 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). “§ 17.46(a) (West 1992). A false statement that induces a party to sign a contract may be a deceptive act for purposes of the Act.”
Provitas, LLC v. Quality Ingredients Corp. (D. Minnesota 2023). “¶ 39–44); violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act (“Texas DTPA”) § 17.46(a)–(b), (Compl. ¶ 45–47); violations of the Federal Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) Current Good Manufacturing Practices, 21 C.”
— Minn. Stat. § 17.46(a) — 2 cases
Banbury v. Omnitrition Int'l, Inc., 533 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). “§ 17.46(a) (West 1992). A false statement that induces a party to sign a contract may be a deceptive act for purposes of the Act.”
Provitas, LLC v. Quality Ingredients Corp. (D. Minnesota 2023). “¶ 39–44); violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act (“Texas DTPA”) § 17.46(a)–(b), (Compl. ¶ 45–47); violations of the Federal Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) Current Good Manufacturing Practices, 21 C.”
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.