with the bankruptcy judge’s conclusion that since Maley would have been entitled to an exemption under both subsection (d)(5) and (6) for her tools, she is entitled to avoid the lien on all of the exempted tools under subsection (f), even if the total value of the tools for lien avoidance purposes exceeds the $750 cap in subsection (d)(6). To deny her the full amount for lien avoidance would impair her exemption under subsection (d)(5), in violation of the purpose and plain language of that subsection. The parties have stipulated that all of the items at issue are tools of the trade, which makes it unnecessary to consider whether any of the items are more like “principal capital assets” of the business than like modest implements. See Matter of Patterson, 825 F.2d 1140 (7th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). I turn next to the procedural argument made
holding that there was no evidence of market value where owners testimony affirmatively showed that it was based on personal value holding that cows and tractor are not personal equipment of modest value intended to be exempted as tools of the trade under either  522d6 or f holding that supplier lists can be trade secrets under indianas uniform trade secrets act which uses the same definition of a trade secret as montana holding that the inevitable disclosure theory can be applied under north carolina law where 1 injunction is limited to protecting specifically defined trade secrets and 2 the trade secret is clearly identified and of significant value holding that the burden of establishing the true existence of a trade secret and its value to the owner remains on the claimant who must submit evidence relating to the six factors that texas law considers for trade secret status