Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics, Inc. v. Capstone Orthopedic, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the parties' \ 'evidentiary objections' to [their adversary's] separate statements of undisputed facts are not considered because such objections should be directed at the evidence supporting those statements\
• declining to rule on objections to statements in declarations submitted with a summary judgment motion
• noting 14 that the parties’ “evidentiary objections to [their adversary’s] separate statements of 15 undisputed facts are not considered because such objections should be directed at the 16 evidence supporting those statements”
• “The term ‘defraud’ for purposes of § 1030(a)(4) simply means wrongdoing and does not require proof of common law fraud.”
• “Since facts supporting Plaintiff’s misappropriation of trade secrets claim against 16 [Defendants] also support this claim, a jury could reasonably find in favor of Plaintiff on this 17 claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).