§
Subdivision 1.Certificate.
No person shall hereafter carry on or conduct or transact a commercial business in this state under any designation, name, or style, which does not set forth the true name of every person interested in such business unless such person shall file in the Office of the Secretary of State, a certificate setting forth the name and business address under which the business is conducted or transacted, or is to be conducted or transacted, and the true name of each person conducting or transacting the same, with the address of such person. The name of the business must not include any of the following phrases or their abbreviations: corporation, incorporated, limited, chartered, professional association, cooperative, limited partnership, limited liability company, professional limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or professional limited liability partnership, except to the extent that an entity filing a certificate would be authorized to use the phrase or abbreviation. The certificate shall be executed by one of the persons conducting, or intending to conduct, the business. The certificate shall be published after it has been filed with the secretary of state in a qualified newspaper in the county in which the person has a principal or registered office for two successive issues.
§
Subd. 2.Intentional misrepresentation prohibited.
No person shall use an assumed or fictitious name in the conduct of its business to intentionally misrepresent its geographic origin or location.
Notes of Decisions
Northland Temporaries, Inc. v. Turpin, 744 N.W.2d 398 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 10× “” Under this second theory, Northland claims that the Turpins are personally liable because they violated Minn.Stat. § 333.01 (2006), which prohibits a person from conducting business under an assumed name “unless such person shall file in the Office of the Secretary of State, a…”
Hovelson v. U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc., 450 N.W.2d 137 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “Pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 333.01 (1986), Greg Olson, president of both appellant corporations and a licensed attorney in Colorado, filed documents with the Minnesota secretary of state authorizing Scandinavian USSF to use the name U.”
Watson v. Stonewings on the Lake, 393 N.W.2d 518 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “Should Stonewings be estopped from pleading the statute of limitations because *520 it failed to register its tradename as required by Minn.Stat. § 333.01? 2. Can Watsons’ amended complaint relate back to the date of initiation of the previous lawsuit? ANALYSIS I Watsons concede…”
Minneapple Co. v. Normandin, 338 N.W.2d 18 (Minn. 1983).
· cites it 2× “There was no evidence that the partners’ names were filed or published as required by Minn.Stat. § 333.01 (1982) as persons conducting business of The Minneapple Company.”
Hart Publications, Inc. v. Kaplan, 37 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 1949).
· cites it 5× “*516 Plaintiff made out a “presumptive” case that Ida Kaplan and Thelma Geller were members of the partnership, styled “Park Square Manufacturing Company,” by introducing the certificate of ownership under §§ 333.01 and 333.03 and the proof that that certificate had never been…”
Hoglund-Hall v. Kleinschmidt, 381 N.W.2d 889 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Did the trial court err in denying appellants’ motion to dismiss or stay proceedings based on respondents’ alleged failure to comply with Minn.Stat. § 333.01 through 333.06? 5. Did the trial court err in denying appellants’ motion to dismiss respondents’ complaint for failure to…”
State v. Burns, 9 N.W.2d 518 (Minn. 1943).
“§§ 333.01 to 333.02 (Id. 1927, §§ 7346-7347).”
Cahoon v. L.B. White Co., LLC (D. Minnesota 2019).
· cites it 4× “Under Minnesota law, a person or entity is prohibited from conducting business under an assumed name unless the person or entity files “a certificate setting forth the name and business address under which the business is conducted or transacted.”
Progressive Welder Co. v. Collom, 125 F. Supp. 307 (D. Minnesota 1954).
“§ 333.01. In September of 1950 when the time arrived for the execution of a new one year agreement the Sales Company, having taken over dealings with the local representatives, executed the same, in substitution for the Welder Company.”
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.