Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 80A.01 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 2006 c 196 art 1 s 51,52]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 71
cases, 1975–2016 · leading case: Specialized Tours, Inc. v. Hagen, 392 N.W.2d 520 (Minn. 1986).
Specialized Tours, Inc. v. Hagen, 392 N.W.2d 520 (Minn. 1986). “13 In line with the analysis of the majority in Landreth and Gould , the Dittmann stock which was transferred to Specialized Tours possessed all of the characteristics associated with stock, and, thus, the sale of Dittmann was a securities transaction subject to the anti-fraud…”
Stephenson v. Deutsche Bank AG, 282 F. Supp. 2d 1032 (D. Minnesota 2003). “Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants violated Minn.Stat. § 80A.01, the state counterpart to Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.”
TROOIEN v. Mansour, 608 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2010). “Minn.Stat. § 80A.01 makes it "unlawful for any person, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly:" (a) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (b) to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state…”
TCF Banking & Sav., F.A. v. Arthur Young & Co., 706 F. Supp. 1408 (D. Minnesota 1988). “Count II alleges a violation of the Minnesota Uniform Securities Act, Minn.Stat. § 80A.01 et seq. Count III alleges a claim of common law negligence.”
Minneapolis Employees Ret. Fund v. Allison-Williams Co., 519 N.W.2d 176 (Minn. 1994). “We consider first whether the district court properly granted summary judgment for Allison-Williams with respect to MERF’s claim that Allison-Williams violated the Minnesota Securities Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 80A.01 to 80A.31 (1990), by recommending the sale of unsuitable securities.”
Bond v. Charlson, 374 N.W.2d 423 (Minn. 1985). “In the first place a violation of the anti-fraud provisions of the securities act does not prevent the formation of a contract. The statute recognizes the existence of a contract; but while preserving any rights traditionally available to the victim of fraud, such as restitution…”
Burns v. Ersek, 591 F. Supp. 837 (D. Minnesota 1984). “Count III alleges violations of the Minnesota Securities Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 80A.01 and 80A.03. Specifically, plaintiff claims Lurie Eiger knowingly misstated or omitted material facts in its opinions during the period and knowingly, recklessly, negligently or unreasonably failed…”
Merry v. Prestige Capital Markets, Ltd., 944 F. Supp. 2d 702 (D. Minnesota 2013). “The current MSA became effective August 1, 2007, but before 2007, a substantially similar action could be brought under Minn.Stat. § 80A.01. See Brent A. Olson, Introduction — Uniform Securities Act of 2002, 20A2 Minn.”
State v. Stith, 292 N.W.2d 269 (Minn. 1980). “05 (1978), and seven counts of securities fraud, Minn.Stat. §§ 80A.01, 80A.22, 609.05 (1978).”
Hagert v. Glickman, Lurie, Eiger & Co., 520 F. Supp. 1028 (D. Minnesota 1981). “§§ 80A.01, 80A.03, and 80A.17; that all defendants were negligent and acted with willful indifference to plaintiffs’ rights; that all defendants, either as principals, aiders and abettors or control persons, violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.”
In Re Flight Transp. Corp. SEC. Litig., 593 F. Supp. 612 (D. Minnesota 1984). “01 provides: It is unlawful for any persons, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly: (a) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (b) to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state material facts…”
Foley v. Allard, 427 N.W.2d 647 (Minn. 1988). “Foley argues first that the court of appeals has determined that Minn.Stat. § 80A.01 (1986), which establishes a pri *650 mary violation, is a derivative of § 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.”
— Minn. Stat. § 80A.01(a) — 4 cases
Specialized Tours, Inc. v. Hagen, 392 N.W.2d 520 (Minn. 1986). “13 In line with the analysis of the majority in Landreth and Gould , the Dittmann stock which was transferred to Specialized Tours possessed all of the characteristics associated with stock, and, thus, the sale of Dittmann was a securities transaction subject to the anti-fraud…”
State v. Stith, 292 N.W.2d 269 (Minn. 1980). “05 (1978), and seven counts of securities fraud, Minn.Stat. §§ 80A.01, 80A.22, 609.05 (1978).”
Foley v. Allard, 427 N.W.2d 647 (Minn. 1988). “Foley argues first that the court of appeals has determined that Minn.Stat. § 80A.01 (1986), which establishes a pri *650 mary violation, is a derivative of § 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.”
First State Bank of Floodwood v. Jubie, 847 F. Supp. 695 (D. Minnesota 1993).
— Minn. Stat. § 80A.01(b) — 10 cases
Specialized Tours, Inc. v. Hagen, 392 N.W.2d 520 (Minn. 1986). “13 In line with the analysis of the majority in Landreth and Gould , the Dittmann stock which was transferred to Specialized Tours possessed all of the characteristics associated with stock, and, thus, the sale of Dittmann was a securities transaction subject to the anti-fraud…”
State v. Stith, 292 N.W.2d 269 (Minn. 1980). “05 (1978), and seven counts of securities fraud, Minn.Stat. §§ 80A.01, 80A.22, 609.05 (1978).”
TROOIEN v. Mansour, 608 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2010). “Minn.Stat. § 80A.01 makes it "unlawful for any person, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly:" (a) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; (b) to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state…”
Sprangers v. Interactive Tech., Inc., 394 N.W.2d 498 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
Noble v. C.E.D.O., Inc., 374 N.W.2d 734 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
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.