Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 27.04 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
MS 2018 [Repealed, 2020 c 89 art 1 s 21]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1943–2021 · leading case: Anchor Cas. Co. v. Bongards Co-operative Creamery Assn., 91 N.W.2d 122 (Minn. 1958).
Anchor Cas. Co. v. Bongards Co-operative Creamery Assn., 91 N.W.2d 122 (Minn. 1958). “Under the provisions of § 27.04, in order to secure indemnification from the bonding company, Bongards as a creditor was required to submit to the commissioner of agriculture its claim against the produce dealer within 30 days from the date the obligation became due.”
Aviva Sports, Inc. v. Fingerhut Direct Mktg., Inc., 829 F. Supp. 2d 802 (D. Minnesota 2011). “Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 27.04(3)(d), at 27-48 (3rd ed. 1996)); see also Johnson & Johnson, 631 F.”
Heidi Ott A.G. v. Target Corp., 153 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (D. Minnesota 2001). “Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 27.04(3)(d) (3rd ed.1996) (footnotes omitted).”
Bozied v. Edgerton, 58 N.W.2d 313 (Minn. 1953). “The bond, required under § 27.04 as a condition precedent to engaging in the business of a licensed wholesale produce dealer, is conditioned to secure compliance by the principal with all laws relating to the wholesale produce business and to secure the payment when due of the…”
Dehning v. Marshall Produce Co., 10 N.W.2d 229 (Minn. 1943). “1941, § 27.04 (Mason St. 1940 Supp. § 6240-18½c).”
Leasure v. Clarkin, 8 N.W.2d 521 (Minn. 1943). “1941, § 27.04 (Mason St. 1940 Supp. § 6240-18%c).”
W. Meat, Inc. v. Wilson, 133 N.W.2d 631 (Minn. 1965). “27 is not applicable to the six plaintiffs; and an order enjoining the commissioner of agriculture from enforcing against plaintiffs the licensing and bonding provisions of § 27.04. A temporary restraining order directed against the commissioner was obtained when the action was…”
Little Giant Ladder Sys., LLC. v. Tricam Indus., Inc. (D. Minnesota 2021). “Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 27.04(3)(d), at 27–48 (3d ed. 1996)). The burden is similarly low when a plaintiff seeks the equitable remedy of disgorgement of profits.”
Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Schwandt, 157 N.W.2d 506 (Minn. 1968). “(2d) 631 , filed February 11, 1965, which held that wholesale produce dealers who do not make purchases directly from farmers are not required to file the statutory bond contemplated by § 27.04, relator demanded that the commissioner of agriculture return the $2,000 which it had…”
— Minn. Stat. § 27.04(3)(d) — 3 cases
Aviva Sports, Inc. v. Fingerhut Direct Mktg., Inc., 829 F. Supp. 2d 802 (D. Minnesota 2011). “Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 27.04(3)(d), at 27-48 (3rd ed. 1996)); see also Johnson & Johnson, 631 F.”
Heidi Ott A.G. v. Target Corp., 153 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (D. Minnesota 2001). “Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 27.04(3)(d) (3rd ed.1996) (footnotes omitted).”
Little Giant Ladder Sys., LLC. v. Tricam Indus., Inc. (D. Minnesota 2021). “Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 27.04(3)(d), at 27–48 (3d ed. 1996)). The burden is similarly low when a plaintiff seeks the equitable remedy of disgorgement of profits.”
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.