Legal Opinion

Electro-Craft Corp. v. Controlled Motion, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided July 2, 1985No. C0-85-275PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FOLEY, Judge.

Respondent-plaintiff Electro-Craft Corporation (ECC) sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a temporary injunction (TI) against appellant-defendant Controlled Motion, Inc. (CMI). ECC posted $260,000 in bonds. The district court permanently enjoined CMI, but the supreme court reversed this order, holding that ECC failed to establish trade secrets.

CMI moved the district court to assess its damages against the injunction bonds for attorney fees and costs incurred in defending against the wrongfully issued injunctions. The trial court denied the motion. CMI appeals the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Electro-Craft Corp. v. Controlled Motion, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  2. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. LoescherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  3. Pelkey v. National Surety Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
  4. Lamb v. ShawSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
  5. Nielsen v. City of Albert LeaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Schwandt Sanitation of Paynesville v. City of PaynesvilleCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API