Legal Opinion
Federal-Hoffman, Inc. v. Fackler
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided June 4, 1996No. C7-95-2588PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DAVIES, Judge.
Appellant, a Florida resident, challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss respondent’s deceptive trade practices action for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
FACTS
Respondent Federal-Hofftnan, Inc., claiming that appellant Martin L. Fackler, M.D., has conducted a false, misleading, deceptive, and disparaging campaign against both Federal-Hoffman and its Hydra-Shok ammunition, commenced this action against Fackler for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 325D.43-.48…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Advanced Training Systems Inc. v. Caswell Equipment Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- State by Spannaus v. Century Camera, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Stanek v. A.P.I., Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
- Peterson v. EishenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
- Johnson Bros. Corp. v. Arrowhead Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Shaw v. Board of Regents of the University of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
- Commissioner of Natural Resources v. Nicollet County Public Water/Wetlands Hearings UnitCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
- Metge v. Central Neighborhood Improvement Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002
- Maye v. University of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- Plocher v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.