Legal Opinion

Hagen v. Burmeister & Associates, Inc.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided August 2, 2001No. C3-00-496PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

LANCASTER, Justice.

A trial court held that insurance agent Paul Hagen was hable to his former employer, respondent Burmeister & Associates, Inc., for breach of contract and for misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of the Minnesota Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA). The trial court also held that Hagen’s current employer, appellant American Agency, Inc., was not vicariously liable to Burmeister for Hagen’s UTSA violation because an employer cannot, as a matter of law, be vicariously liable for an employee’s UTSA violation. Burmeister appealed that holding and the court of…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Tracer Research Corp. v. National Environmental Services Company, Doing Business as Nesco Lab One Analytical, Inc. Eddy Paterson Albert McCutchanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
  2. Electro-Craft Corp. v. Controlled Motion, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  3. Balder v. HaleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
  4. Marston v. Minneapolis Clinic of Psychiatry & Neurology, Ltd.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  5. Lange v. National Biscuit CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. D.M.S. v. BarberSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
  2. Hartford Fire Insurance v. ClarkDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2010
  3. F.S. Sperry Co. v. SchopmannDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2018
  4. Infinity Products, Inc. v. QuandtIndiana Court of Appeals · 2002
  5. Schmitz v. United States Steel Corp.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API