Legal Opinion

Carstedt v. Grindeland

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided May 19, 1987No. C3-86-2001PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

NIERENGARTEN, Judge.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment that respondents Steven Grindeland or Clean Print, Inc. (CPI) were not liable to appellant Howard Carstedt under an exclusive license agreement with respondents Gordon Grindeland and Clean Print Systems (CPS). We affirm.

FACTS

In June 1973, Carstedt executed a license agreement with Gordon Grindeland granting Grindeland the exclusive right to manufacture and sell a decurling device developed by Carstedt. Carstedt received royalties on decurler sales and agreed to pursue patent rights and provide technical assistance in the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Nord v. HerreidSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  2. J. F. Anderson Lumber Co. v. MyersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
  3. Meyers v. Postal Finance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  4. Boone v. KriegSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
  5. Johnson v. O'BRIENSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Everest v. American Transportation Corp.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1988
  2. Borer v. CarlsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API