Vito v. Inman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff failed to prove both prongs because he admitted that his competitors “would not seek to use the [customer] list to take his patients from him.”
• finding that plaintiff could not recover for slander because of inability to prove falsity and recognizing that “[d]efamation law overlooks minor inaccuracies and concentrates upon substantial truth”
• defendant was entitled to summary judgment as to claim for misappropriation of trade secrets because podiatrist plaintiff failed to produce evidence that he derived some economic value in the secrecy of his patient list

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).