7 results for 'cat:"Interference With Contract" AND cat:"Business Practices"'.
J. Carlyle finds that the lower court properly granted the appellee's special appearance in this lawsuit asserting a claim for tortious interference with contract after the appellee company allegedly hired one of the appellant's employees. The court rejects the appellant's argument that the appellee company, which operates principally in Michigan, consented to general jurisdiction in Texas "by registering to do business here." The registration statutes do not specifically indicate that "complying with them would subject a business to personal jurisdiction." Also, the employee at issue lives and works in Arizona, and his contract was executed under Michigan law. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Carlyle, Filed On: May 16, 2024, Case #: 05-23-00921-CV, Categories: interference With Contract, Jurisdiction, business Practices
J. Kim partially grants the sued spinal implant manufacturer’s motions in limine against the suing spinal implant manufacturer. This dispute over two competing “expandable cage” spinal implant products that perform the same function will go to jury trial in January 2024. The suing manufacturer accuses the defendant of stealing its design. The court, on the defendant’s motion, bars the suing manufacturer from producing “ambiguous, misleading or new evidence of alleged trade secret misappropriation,” as well as making other claims about the defendant’s product. The court will allow other controversial materials and topics, such as the actions of the defendant’s parent company, to be brought up at trial.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Kim, Filed On: December 11, 2023, Case #: 1:19cv7092, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Trade Secrets, interference With Contract, business Practices
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Leinenweber partially grants the oil company's motion to dismiss contract claims brought by the convenience store owner over the parties' botched Shell Oil franchising agreement. After the deal fell through, the convenience store owner brought breach of contract, fraud, intentional tort and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the oil company. The court now tosses all of them save a single contract claim.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Leinenweber, Filed On: June 29, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv5393, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: interference With Contract, business Practices, Contract