Legal Opinion

Chapman v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 30, 1958No. Civ. 23153PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PATROSSO, J. pro tem. *

Mandate to review the action of the respondent court in denying petitioner’s motion to quash service of summons.

Eastman Oil Well Survey Company, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, instituted an action against the petitioner in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on September 17, 1957, wherein it seeks damages and an injunction to restrain petitioner, a former employee, from divulging and making available to plaintiff’s former customers trade secrets, knowledge of which he acquired by reason of his employment. From the allegations of the complaint it appears that…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Smith v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Farnham v. GordonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Estate of PetersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  4. Rhodes v. RhodesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Walters v. WeedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Fenton v. Board of DirectorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
  3. Noble v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
  4. Walters v. WeedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Young v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1974

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API