Diamond v. T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the defendant-former employee’s possession of documents was not misappropriation, since the plaintiff sent the defendant home with those documents for work purposes during defendant’s employment with the plaintiff
• “The five-month gap between T. Rowe Price’s demand for the disputed documents and Diamond’s return of the same may have caused T. Rowe Price some inconvenience. Such inconvenience, however, cannot be redressed through an action for conversion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).