Miss. Code Ann. § 75-26-1
Short title
This chapter may be cited as the Mississippi Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Laws, 1990, ch. 442, § 1, eff. 7/1/1990.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Marshall v. Gipson Steel, Inc.
Marshall v. Gipson Steel, Inc. (2002)
“At the conclusion of a bench trial, the chancellor concluded that the Marshall software violated the Mississippi Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA), Miss.Code Ann. §§ 75-26-1 to 19 (2000), and permanently enjoined Marshall "from marketing or otherwise disseminating the software…”
Fred's Stores of Miss. v. M & H DRUGS (1998)
“All of the plaintiff's claims were preempted by the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, § 75-26-1, et seq, Miss.Code Ann. (1972).”
New South Equipment Mats, LLC v. Keener (2013)
“Keener next seeks dismissal of New South’s claims for conversion and for accounting/unjust enrichment (set forth as Counts IV and VI) on the basis that such claims are are preempted by the Mississippi Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA), Miss.Code Ann. § 75-26-1 se seq. MUT-SA…”
Unified Brands, Inc. v. Teders (2012)
“In its Amended Complaint, Unified next alleges that AEC and Holder violated the Mississippi Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“MUTSA”), codified at Miss. Code Ann. § 75-26-1 et seq. To state a viable claim under MUTSA, Unified must demonstrate: (1) a trade secret existed; (2) the trade…”
Expro Americas, LLC v. Walters (2015)
“Expro specifically alleged that “[t]he information used to design and create the frailer-mounted flaring system is a ‘trade secret’ of Expro’s within the meaning of Miss.Code Ann. § 75-26-1, at seq,” Furthermore, it alleged breach of contract against H & H, claiming that the…”
Evans v. General Motors Corp. (2006)
“(West 2004); Miss. Code Ann. § 75-26-1 et seq. (2000); Mo.”
Union National Life Insurance v. Tillman (2000)
“On June 21, 2000, Union National filed this action against Tillman for breach of contract, violation of the Mississippi Uniform Trade Secrets Act (sections 75-26-1 through 75-26-19 of the Mississippi Code) and tortious interference with business relations.”
Pepper v. International Gaming Systems, LLC (2004)
“Misappropriation of Trade Secrets The Mississippi Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Mississippi Code Annotated § 75-26-1, et seq. is identical to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, 14 U.”
B. Scott Marshall v. Gipson Steel, Inc. (2000)
“At the conclusion of a bench trial, the chancellor concluded that the Marshall software violated the Mississippi Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA), Miss. Code Ann. §§ 75-26-1 to -19 (2000), and permanently enjoined Marshall "from marketing or otherwise disseminating the software…”
North Mississippi Medical Center, Inc. v. Quartiz Technologies (2025)
“§ 75-26-1 et seq. To succeed on either claim, “a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) a trade secret existed, (2) the trade secret was acquired through a breach of a confidential relationship or discovered by improper means, and (3) the defendant used the trade secret without…”
North Mississippi Medical Center, Inc. v. Quartiz Technologies (2025)
“§ 75-26-1 et seq. To succeed on either claim, “a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) a trade secret existed, (2) the trade secret was acquired through a breach of a confidential relationship or discovered by improper means, and (3) the defendant used the trade secret without…”
Fred's Stores of MS Inc v. M & H Drugs Inc (1996)
“All of the plaintiff's claims were preempted by the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, § 75-26-1, et seq, Miss. Code Ann. (1972).”
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.