Pan-O-Gold Baking Co. v. Metz Baking Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Pan-O-Gold Baking Co. v. Metz Baking Co.

277 N.W.2d 658, 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1461

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 30, 1979

DocketNo. 48535

StatusPublished

This text of 277 N.W.2d 658 (Pan-O-Gold Baking Co. v. Metz Baking Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pan-O-Gold Baking Co. v. Metz Baking Co., 277 N.W.2d 658, 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1461 (Mich. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

TODD, Justice.

Defendant Leo Johnson was employed as plant manager of plaintiff, Pan-O-Gold Baking Company’s Fargo, North Dakota, plant. There was no contract of employment nor an agreement not to compete. Johnson left Pan-O-Gold to take employment with a competitor, defendant Metz Baking Company, at its Fergus Falls, Minnesota, plant, which served the same trade area as Pan-O-Gold. Pan-O-Gold sought in-junctive relief and damages.

At the close of the evidence, the district court directed a verdict for defendants, finding (1) that the information to which Johnson had access through his employment with plaintiff could not be classified as confidential or trade secrets; (2) that defendants had not used the information so acquired for the purpose of injuring plaintiff; and (3) that there was no evidence of any loss suffered by plaintiff as a result of defendants’ use of the information.

We have reviewed the files, records, and proceedings herein and find no basis to overturn the determination of the trial court, which is supported by an excellent memorandum.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TODD, Justice.

Defendant Leo Johnson was employed as plant manager of plaintiff, Pan-O-Gold Baking Company’s Fargo, North Dakota, plant. There was no contract of employment nor an agreement not to compete. Johnson left Pan-O-Gold to take employment with a competitor, defendant Metz Baking Company, at its Fergus Falls, Minnesota, plant, which served the same trade area as Pan-O-Gold. Pan-O-Gold sought in-junctive relief and damages.

At the close of the evidence, the district court directed a verdict for defendants, finding (1) that the information to which Johnson had access through his employment with plaintiff could not be classified as confidential or trade secrets; (2) that defendants had not used the information so acquired for the purpose of injuring plaintiff; and (3) that there was no evidence of any loss suffered by plaintiff as a result of defendants’ use of the information.

We have reviewed the files, records, and proceedings herein and find no basis to overturn the determination of the trial court, which is supported by an excellent memorandum.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 N.W.2d 658, 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pan-o-gold-baking-co-v-metz-baking-co-minn-1979.