Murray v. A. F. Holden Co.
Connecticut Superior Court
1Opinion of the CourtMunger, J.
The case in substance presents these facts: The plaintiff was a salesman of the defendant company, which company in a general way was engaged in the wire industry. The plaintiff signed a contract with the defendant company, Exhibit A. This contract, as appears by its terms, required the plaintiff to disclose to the defendant “and to none other, any trade secret, method, process, invention, or patent which I now possess or may make or acquire during a period (comprising my employment) and two years thereafter, embracing, embodying, or relating to any device, apparatus, method, process,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- May v. YoungSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
- Club Aluminum Co. v. YoungMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
- Taylor Iron & Steel Co. v. NicholsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1908
- Dutch Cookie MacHine Co. v. Vande VredeMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
- Wege v. Safe-Cabinet Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1918
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Universal Winding Co. v. ClarkeDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1952
- Holden v. Crown Chemical CorporationConnecticut Superior Court · 1954