Colorado Supply Co., Inc. v. Stewart

How courts have described this case

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

• reversing fee award based on “groundlessness” because “plaintiff introduced some evidence” in support of his claim
• agreeing “there was no misappropriation because there was no improper acquisition of the information and because the . . . agreements imposed no duty on [the defendant]” regarding the alleged trade secret
• product formulas were not trade secrets because they “were not unique to plaintiff and were versions of formulas from products not created by or unique to the plaintiff”
• discussing types of reasonable efforts that suffice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).