Legal Opinion
Mead Corp., Diconix, Inc., Successor v. Lane
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided September 8, 1988No. 1089PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWhiteside, J.
Defendants, Paul M. Lane and Ink Jet Products, Inc., appeal from a judgment of the Ross County Court of Common Pleas and raise seven assignments of error as follows:
“1. The court erred as a matter of law in failing to require plaintiff to prove its cause of action by clear and convincing evidence.
“2. The court erred as a matter of law in holding that the fact of the existence of a non-exclusive license between plaintiff and the * * * [ABC] Ink Company can constitute a trade secret of plaintiff’s so as to create standing in plaintiff to prevent the use of a similar non-exclusive license…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- C. E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
- Schmidt v. LessardSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Water Management, Inc. v. StayanchiOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Household Finance Corp. v. AltenbergOhio Supreme Court · 1966
- Southern Ohio Bank v. Southern Ohio Savings Ass'nOhio Court of Appeals · 1976
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Vanguard Transportation Systems, Inc. v. Edwards Transfer & Storage Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1996
- 205 CORP. v. BrandowSupreme Court of Iowa · 1994
- Dunn v. RansomOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
- Hydrofarm, Inc. v. OrendorffOhio Court of Appeals · 2008
- Connor Group v. RaneyOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.