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

332 N.W.2d 890 (1983)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
E
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

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

Minnesota Supreme Court
332 N.W.2d 890 (1983)

  • Written by Jack Newell, JD
Play video

Facts

Electro-Craft Corporation (ECC) (plaintiff) was a maker of electric motors. John Mahoney, an employee of ECC, left the company to form his own company, Controlled Motion Incorporated (CMI) (defendant). CMI produced motors that were similar to those made by ECC. Mahoney recruited employees from ECC who had signed noncompetition agreements with the company but not confidentiality agreements. CMI proceeded to compete for contracts with customers of ECC. ECC sued CMI for misappropriation of trade secrets. CMI argued that the designs of the motors were not truly trade secrets, because ECC did not do enough to properly safeguard them. The district court ruled in favor of ECC. The case was appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Coyne, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 810,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Intellectual Property
Patent

Key Terms