Legal Opinion

Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Technical Tape Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 11, 1959PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Arthur D. Brennan, J,

This action was instituted by the plaintiff for injunctive relief and damages upon the ground that the defendants allegedly misappropriated and utilized processing methods of the plaintiff. The plaintiff contends that the defendants, Shalita and Cohen, acting on behalf of themselves as well as the defendant corporations, inveigled the defendant, Beyer, a former employee of the plaintiff, to breach his contract with the plaintiff and to disclose its trade secrets.

The plaintiff, hereinafter also referred to as “ 3M ”, is a Delaware corporation licensed to do business in the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Board of Trade of Chicago v. Christie Grain & Stock Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
  2. Hoeltke v. C. M. Kemp Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1936
  3. Smith v. Dravo Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1953
  4. Franke v. WiltschekCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
  5. Peabody v. NorfolkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Fmc Corporation v. Taiwan Tainan Giant Industrial Co., Ltd., and Frederick G. FierchCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1984
  2. Ivy Mar Co., Inc. v. CR Seasons Ltd.District Court, E.D. New York · 1995
  3. Q-Co Industries, Inc. v. HoffmanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1985
  4. Mixing Equipment Co., Inc. v. Philadelphia Gear, Inc., and George Leamy. Appeal of George LeamyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1971
  5. Business Intelligence Services, Inc. v. HudsonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1984

28 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