Conrad v. Cleaveland

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that analogous UTSA preemption provision barred promissory estoppel claim which “restates the claim for misappropriation of trade secrets”
• determining that the defendant’s arguments that the plaintiff’s precautions were unreasonable “fail at the pleading stage”
• concluding the “ITSA preempts the [plaintiff’s] unjust enrichment claim.”
• “[The pertinent question, then, is whether those claims would stand even if the [information] was not alleged to be a trade secret.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).