Legal Opinion
Claybourne v. Imsland
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided October 27, 1987No. C3-87-1151PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
POPOVICH, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal of a judgment and its amendment under the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Appellants argue an injunction permitting limited use of a deceptive trade name is an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Appellants seek a permanent and total ban of any use of the deceptive name and allege that any other remedy denies them the relief to which they are entitled under facts as found by the trial court and law. We agree and affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.
FACTS
Appellants began and operated a computer sales and service business in Albert…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- Baglin v. Cusenier Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Howards Clothes, Inc. v. Howard Clothes Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
- North Star State Bank of Roseville v. North Star Bank MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Viking Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Viking Fire Protection Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Page & Wirtz Construction Co. v. SolomonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1990
- Issaenko v. University of MinnesotaDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2014
- State Ex Rel. Nixon v. Telco Directory PublishingSupreme Court of Missouri · 1993
- CSM Investors, Inc. v. Everest Development, Ltd.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1994
- McClure v. American Family Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1998
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.