Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc., 278 N.W.2d 81.

238 citing documents.

Anderson v. Medtronic, Inc. 382 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1986
Anderson v. Medtronic, Inc. 382 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1986
The existence of bad faith is a fact issue, Cherne Industrial, however, it is an issue which must be decided by the trial court, not the jury.
Benson v. City of Little Falls 379 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Benson v. City of Little Falls 379 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates
Schmidt v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 376 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Schmidt v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 376 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
ANALYSIS In order to overturn a trial court’s findings, a reviewing court “must be left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, notwithstanding the evidence to support such findings.” Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc.
Loxtercamp, Inc. v. Belgrade Cooperative Ass'n 368 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Loxtercamp, Inc. v. Belgrade Cooperative Ass'n 368 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc.
Dean Van Horn Consulting Associates, Inc. v. Wold 367 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Dean Van Horn Consulting Associates, Inc. v. Wold 367 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Cherne Industrial, Inc., v. Grounds & Associates, Inc. n. 2 (Minn.1979).
Saliterman v. Finney 361 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Saliterman v. Finney 361 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc., (citation omitted).
Yager v. Thompson 352 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Yager v. Thompson 352 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See also Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Assoc., Inc.
Widgren v. Massie 352 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Widgren v. Massie 352 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Interpreting this language, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “to overturn a trial court’s findings, [the] court must be left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, notwithstanding the evidence to support such findings.” Cherne Industrial Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, (factual findings reasonably supported by the evidence are not clearly erroneous).
Advanced Training Systems Inc. v. Caswell Equipment Co. 352 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1984
Advanced Training Systems Inc. v. Caswell Equipment Co. 352 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1984
This court has stated that ‘“[pjrior restraint’ usually refers to judicial suppression, prior to publication, of expression alleged to be ‘dangerous’ or ‘defamatory.’” Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc., , 94 n.9 (Minn.1979) (citing Near, 283 U.S. 697 , 51 S.Ct.
Nelson v. Engen 347 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Nelson v. Engen 347 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See generally Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc., (indicating the common law rule).
Barr/Nelson, Inc. v. Tonto's, Inc. 336 N.W.2d 46 Minn. 1983
Barr/Nelson, Inc. v. Tonto's, Inc. 336 N.W.2d 46 Minn. 1983
Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc.
Electro-Craft Corp. v. Controlled Motion, Inc. 332 N.W.2d 890 Minn. 1983
Electro-Craft Corp. v. Controlled Motion, Inc. 332 N.W.2d 890 Minn. 1983
In Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc., we adopted the four-point test of Restatement, Torts § 757: to be a trade secret the information must (1) not be generally known or readily ascertainable, (2) provide a competitive advantage, (3) have been developed at plaintiff’s expense, and (4) be the subject of plaintiff’s intent to keep it confidenti
Blattner v. Forster 322 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1982
Blattner v. Forster 322 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1982
§ 549.21 (1980) provides that “[u]pon motion of a party prevailing as to an issue, the court in its discretion may award to that party * * * reasonable attorney fees * * * relating to the issue if the party or attorney against whom * * * fees are charged acted in bad faith as to that issue.” In Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc., we characterized the statute as a codification of the common law rule that attorneys’ fees are recoverable where the unsuccessful party has acted
Jostens, Inc. v. National Computer System, Inc. 318 N.W.2d 691 Minn. 1982
Jostens, Inc. v. National Computer System, Inc. 318 N.W.2d 691 Minn. 1982
In Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc., we held that a trade secret has four characteristics: (1) the matter involved is not generally known or readily ascertainable, (2) it provides a demonstrable competitive advantage, (3) it was gained at expense to the plaintiff-owner, and (4) the plaintiff-owner intended to keep it confidential.
Material Movers, Inc. v. Hill 316 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1982
Material Movers, Inc. v. Hill 316 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1982
Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc.
United Wild Rice, Inc. v. Nelson 313 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1982
United Wild Rice, Inc. v. Nelson 313 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 1982
This court set out the test for determining which information is confidential or a trade secret in Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc.
Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis v. Shuster 307 N.W.2d 767 Minn. 1981
Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis v. Shuster 307 N.W.2d 767 Minn. 1981
Accord, Cherne Industrial v. Grounds & Associate, -97 (Minn.1979).
Minnesota-Iowa Television Co. v. Watonwan T v. Improvement Ass'n 294 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 1980
Minnesota-Iowa Television Co. v. Watonwan T v. Improvement Ass'n 294 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 1980
Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc.
B & Y Metal Painting, Inc. v. Ball 279 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1979
B & Y Metal Painting, Inc. v. Ball 279 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1979
See, Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc., North Pacific Lumber Co. v. Moore, 275 Or.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by