Matter of Johnson v. Adams & Associates

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the proper interpretation of a contract requires a court to avoid placing emphasis on individual terms \wrenched from the larger contractual context\
• recognizing that, under Virginia’s materially identical Uniform Trade Secrets Act, “[t]here can be no misappropriation where acquisition . . . of a trade secret ha[s] been expressly authorized by contract”
• court’s interpretation of on-site/off-site distinction in the royalty provision was not a question of fact for the jury
• “There can be no misappropriation where acquisition, disclosure, and use of a trade secret have been expressly authorized by contract.”
• when considering the meaning of any part of a contract, the court construes the contract as a whole
• first quoting Wooten v. Bank of Am., N.A., 290 Va. 306, 310 n.1 (2015); and then quoting Wilroy v. Halbleib, 214 Va. 442, 445 (1974)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).