Whittaker Corporation and Dynasciences Corporation v. Execuair Corporation, Emc Manufacturing Company, Inc., and Laurence S. Manhan

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that even the old requirement of appreciable harm was satisfied at the time the defendant, a competitor of plaintiff, acquired plaintiffs alleged trade- secrets
• explaining that a party may be prejudice when expanding its “existing practices” because it “incurfs] additional potential liability”
• holding “[t]he purpose of a discovery cutoff date is to protect the parties from a continuing burden of producing evidence and to assure them adequate time to prepare immediately before trial”
• finding prejudice where a defendant incurred potential liability because of the plaintiffs “failure to take prompt action”
• defendant’s investments in parts and inventory to expand its existing business was evidence of prejudice for purposes of laches
• “Legal arguments normally may not be raised 1 for the first time on appeal . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).