Allied Supply Co., Inc. v. Brown

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[E]xisting common law tort theories of recovery have been replaced by the provisions of the [ATSA] . . . .”
• “[T]he legislature intended for the [ATSA] to replace common law tort remedies for the misappropriation of trade secrets.”
• “[I]t is not a violation of an employee’s fiduciary duty to prepare to enter into competition with his employer without providing prior notice.” (citation modified)
• “We do not agree with the trial court’s ruling that Allied could pursue both statutory and common law theories of recovery for the defendants’ alleged misappropriation of ‘trade secrets’ or confidential documents.”
• “The committee’s comments to the Act indicate that the legislature intended for the Act to replace common law tort remedies for the misappropriation of trade secrets, while leaving existing contract remedies or safeguards in place.”
• “A conspiracy itself furnishes no cause of action. The gist of the action is not the conspiracy but the underlying wrong that was allegedly committed. . . . If the underlying cause of action is not viable, the conspiracy claim must also fail.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).