Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 7. STATE TREASURER
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 7.07 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1981 c 356 s 377]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1972–2002 · leading case: Surgidev Corp. v. Eye Tech., Inc., 648 F. Supp. 661 (D. Minnesota 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Surgidev Corp. v. Eye Tech., Inc., 648 F. Supp. 661 (D. Minnesota 1986). · cites it 4× “aintiff is the owner of a trade secret; (2) plaintiff disclosed the trade secret to defendant; or defendant wrongfully took the trade secret from plaintiff without plaintiff’s authorization; (3) defendant was in a legal relation with reference to plaintiff as a result of which…”
Inland Constr. Co. v. City of Bloomington, 195 N.W.2d 558 (Minn. 1972). · cites it 8× “During all times pertinent to this case, Bloomington Zoning Ordinance, § 7.07, titled Retail Business Districts (B-2), was in effect.”
Electro-Craft Corp. v. Controlled Motion, Inc., 332 N.W.2d 890 (Minn. 1983). “at 701 , quoting 1 Milgrim, Trade Secrets § 7.07(1) at 95. However, without the finding of a trade secret, we cannot grant relief to ECC.”
Jostens, Inc. v. Nat'l Comput. Sys., Inc., 318 N.W.2d 691 (Minn. 1982). “Here, Jostens contends that defendants Titus, Henderson and Hoagberg acquired knowledge of Jostens’ trade secrets while in its employ, and they then used this information to produce a similar CAD/CAM system for their new employer, defendant NCS.”
Marriage of Svenningsen v. Svenningsen, 641 N.W.2d 614 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). “1 Minnesota Family Law Practice Manual § 7.07[C], at 7-43 (Cathy E. Gorlin ed., LexisNexis 3d ed.”
— Minn. Stat. § 7.07(1) — 2 cases
Electro-Craft Corp. v. Controlled Motion, Inc., 332 N.W.2d 890 (Minn. 1983). “at 701 , quoting 1 Milgrim, Trade Secrets § 7.07(1) at 95. However, without the finding of a trade secret, we cannot grant relief to ECC.”
Jostens, Inc. v. Nat'l Comput. Sys., Inc., 318 N.W.2d 691 (Minn. 1982). “Here, Jostens contends that defendants Titus, Henderson and Hoagberg acquired knowledge of Jostens’ trade secrets while in its employ, and they then used this information to produce a similar CAD/CAM system for their new employer, defendant NCS.”
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.