Padco Advisors, Inc. v. Omdahl

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Maryland is where the last act necessary to form the contract occurred because the agreement was signed in Maryland
• noting competitor would derive economic value from company’s customer list because only three companies competed in mutual fund market
• “The doctrine of inevitable disclosure has not been expressly adopted by the Maryland state courts.”
• ci tingErie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188(1938)
• breach of contract claim for violation of covenants not to compete and MUTSA claim for misappropriation of trade secrets brought together
• “Maryland’s law is clearly not contrary to a fundamental policy of California[, so] there is no compelling reason to ignore the choice of law clause agreed to by the parties and Maryland law will be applied.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).