Carolina Chemical Equipment Co. v. Muckenfuss
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
Connor, Judge:
The action was one for intentional interference with contractual rights, misappropriation of trade secrets, and breach of contract. Muckenfuss appeals the denial of his motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the trade secrets cause of action. He and Energen both appeal the issuance of a five-year injunction prohibiting them from selling certain products in Charleston County. Carolina Chemical Equipment Company, Inc. also appeals the issuance of the injunction, and the denial of its motions for a new trial nisi additur, new trial absolute,…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Cafe Associates, Ltd. v. GerngrossSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1991
- Service Centers of Chicago, Inc. v. MinogueAppellate Court of Illinois · 1989
- Lowndes Products Inc. v. BrowerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1972
- Almers v. South Carolina National BankSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1975
- Standard Register Co. v. KerriganSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1961
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Nucor Corp. v. BellDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2007
- Catalyst & Chemical Services, Inc. v. Global Ground SupportDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2004
- Williams v. RiedmanCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2000
- Poole v. Incentives Unlimited, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2001
- Ikon Office Solutions, Inc. v. American Office Products, Inc.District Court, D. Oregon · 2001
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.