El Dorado Laundry Co. v. Ford
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, C. J.,
(after stating the facts). The proof shows that this is not a cáse where the defendant was hired upon the express condition that he would agree, for a limited length of time, not to solicit trade from such customers of the plaintiff as he might have served while in its employ. This is conceded by counsel for the plaintiff,, hut they insist that the facts bring the case within the settled rule that, where the employment of a servant is of a confidential nature, there is an implied contract on the part of the servant not to use, to the detriment of his master, any, trade secret…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- New Method Laundry Co. v. MacCannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Fulton Grand Laundry Co. v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1922
3Cited by13 opinions
- Renpak, Inc. v. OppenheimerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1958
- Woolley's Laundry, Inc. v. SilvaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Witmer v. Arkansas Dailies, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1941
- Allen v. Johar, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
- Harris Manufacturing Company v. WilliamsDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1957
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.