§Why CasetextPricing

E.J. Brooks Company,, Appellant-Respondent,v.Cambridge Security Seals, Respondent-Appellant.

Brief

57 Cited authorities

  1. Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.

    467 U.S. 986 (1984)   Cited 1,063 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Missouri law, which follows the Restatement of Torts, creates cognizable property right in trade secrets

  2. Mandarin v. Wildenstein

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 741 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 1,603 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff must allege a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was "false and known to be false"

  3. Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Co.

    282 U.S. 555 (1931)   Cited 1,104 times
    Holding that although damages must be "the certain result of the wrong," they may be "uncertain in respect of their amount."

  4. Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, L.L.P.

    716 F.3d 867 (5th Cir. 2013)   Cited 260 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding sufficient evidence of improper acquisition existed when parties entered into confidential agreements that gave the offending party access to the alleged trade secret materials

  5. M.D. Mark, Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Corp.

    565 F.3d 753 (10th Cir. 2009)   Cited 196 times
    Holding that, where it is unclear whether a motion is made under rule 50(b) or rule 59, and the party seeking relief failed to properly preserve arguments by a mid-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law under rule 50, "[t]hat leaves only the possibility of Rule 50 relief"

  6. Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*Trade Group, Inc.

    135 Cal.App.4th 21 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 199 times
    Holding that disclosure or use of a trade secret in violation of a nondisclosure agreement is disclosure or use by improper means

  7. Thyroff v. Nationwide

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 2442 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 190 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that computer files could be the subject of a conversion claim, where plaintiff was entirely denied use of those files

  8. Paramount Film Distr. v. State of N.Y

    30 N.Y.2d 415 (N.Y. 1972)   Cited 516 times

    Argued March 20, 1972 Decided June 8, 1972 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, HENRY W. LENGYEL, J. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General ( Grace K. Banoff and Ruth Kessler Toch of counsel), for appellant. John R. Davison and Walter J. Josiah, Jr. for respondent. BREITEL, J. Claimant, a motion picture distributor, seeks recovery of $128,322.50 in motion picture license fees paid to the State from June 10, 1959 to June 10, 1965 when the applicable

  9. Dresser-Rand Co. v. Virtual Automation Inc.

    361 F.3d 831 (5th Cir. 2004)   Cited 189 times
    Holding that "this Court is bound to disregard any errors, including the admission of expert testimony, that do not affect the substantial rights of the parties"

  10. Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory Inc.

    226 Cal.App.4th 26 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 109 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding filing patent applications based on another's trade secrets is "a classic violation of trade secret law"

  11. Section 5001 - Interest to verdict, report or decision

    N.Y. CPLR 5001   Cited 2,364 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Allowing prejudgment interest in contract cases

  12. Section 500.27 - Discretionary proceedings to review certified questions from Federal courts and other courts of last resort

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.27   Cited 230 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing the New York Court of Appeals to review certain certified questions