Susan Spitz v. Proven Winners North America

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that ITSA preempts claims that are “essentially claims of trade secret misappropriation, even when the alleged ‘trade secret’ does not fall within the Act’s definition”
• recognizing that lawyers cannot expect judges to play archaeologist with the record
• finding that the ITSA preempted the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim, even where the district court determined that the plaintiff's idea was not a trade secret
• instructing that a “choice-of-law determination is required only when the [party seeking a choice-of-law determination] has established an actual conflict between state laws.”
• instructing that a “choice-of-law determination is required only when the [party seeking a choice-of-law determination] has established an actual conflict between state laws.”
• providing that a plaintiff must establish the elements of his breach of contract claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).