Adi_Hadzic_Case_Briefs_Chapter_40.doc

Adi_Hadzic_Case_Briefs_Chapter_40.doc - Case name: Ed...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Case name: Ed Nowogroski Insurance, Inc. v. Rucker , Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc, 1999, pg. 853 (textbook), Facts: Insurance agency sued 3 ex-employees for soliciting its clients, after they went to work for a competitor, by using information which was confidential. The trial court decided that the employees violated the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and awarded damages, but also ruled that an employee does not violate the Uniform Trade Secrets Act by using information from his mind to solicit business from his former employer. The employer appealed, and the appeals court agreed, that use of "memorized, confidential client information to solicit his former employer's customers" violated the Act. Employees then appealed on the decision. Procedural History: Nowogroski brought the action against his former employees to the trial court. Trial court granted no damaged to plaintiff, so he appealed to the Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals granted damages. The Supreme court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Issue(s): Whether memorizing information otherwise considered a trade secret allows an employee to use it with impunity? Holding: Washington high court held that valuable customer lists, which had been reasonably protected by an employer, were protected under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Former employees who memorized the list and used the information in competition with their former employer were liable for damages. Reasoning: The nature of the employment relationship imposes a duty on employees and former employees not to use or disclose the employer's trade secrets." A valuable customer list, which has been protected by an employer, may be due trade secret protection. "The fact that the former employee memorized the information, rather than taking it in written form, made no difference Disposition: The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 05/18/2010 for the course INTERNATIO 123345566 taught by Professor Jondelong during the Spring '10 term at SUNY Canton.

Page1 / 3

Adi_Hadzic_Case_Briefs_Chapter_40.doc - Case name: Ed...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online