Legal Opinion · Dissent

Weins v. Sporleder

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 3, 1997No. NonePublished

1DissentSabers, Justice

THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE JURY’S CONCLUSION THAT THE FORMULA CONSTITUTED A TRADE SECRET.

[¶ 35] The Uniform Trade Secret Act (UTSA) is codified at SDCL ch 37-29. Whether something is a “trade secret” hinges on SDCL 37-29-1(4), which provides:(4) “Trade secret,” [is defined as] information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process, that:(i) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Garrett v. BankWest, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Landstrom v. ShaverSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Mangren Research and Development Corporation v. National Chemical Company, Incorporated, and National Mold Release CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
  4. Nugent v. QuamSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Ward v. LangeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API