Lamorte Burns & Co., Inc. v. Walters

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that confidential information “not technically meeting the strict requirements of trade secrets may be protected”
• finding that the malice element of tortious interference is not satisfied if it is merely competitive conduct
• stating that when deciding a breach of duty of loyalty, the jury must consider “the employee’s level of trust and confidence, the existence of an anti-competition contractual provision, and the egregiousness of the conduct”
• explaining, in the context of tortious interference, that “malice” means that “harm was inflicted intentionally and without justification or excuse”
• noting, in the context of tortious interference, that \malice\ means that \harm was inflicted intentionally and without justification or excuse\
• interpreting a restrictive covenant that prohibited employees from \solicit[ing] or accept[ing]\ any business relationship with former employer's clients

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).