Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

[Download] "Nottingham Company v. Resource Materials" by Court of Appeals of Georgia # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

Nottingham Company v. Resource Materials

📘 Read Now     📥 Download


eBook details

  • Title: Nottingham Company v. Resource Materials
  • Author : Court of Appeals of Georgia
  • Release Date : January 30, 1993
  • Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
  • Pages : * pages
  • Size : 65 KB

Description

This appeal and cross-appeal result from a jury verdict against appellant on its claim against appellees and a verdict awarding damages to appellees on their counterclaim. Appellant, a company in the business of buying, blending and selling chemicals, employed appellee Richard Melcher from 1974 through 1982. During his employment, Melcher became involved in the development of a product for sale to Arr-Maz, one of appellant's customers. The product, known as FR835, was made by mixing two chemicals purchased from Emery Industries with several other ingredients. Appellant considered the information related to the development of FR835 to be confidential. In 1983, Melcher resigned from his position with appellant, began operating his own company, appellee Resource Materials Corporation, and entered into a joint venture with Arr-Maz for the development of a product almost identical to FR835. In 1986, appellant filed a lawsuit against appellees, alleging misappropriation of a trade secret, tortious interference with business relations, wrongful appropriation of a business opportunity and breach of the non-compete and non-disclosure provisions of the employment agreement between appellant and Melcher. Appellees responded to the complaint and filed a counterclaim alleging that appellant maliciously brought the complaint for the purpose of harassing appellees. Appellees subsequently amended their counterclaim to allege two causes of action: a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and a claim for abusive litigation under Yost v. Torok, 256 Ga. 92 (344 S.E.2d 414) (1986). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and both were denied by the trial court. In a pretrial order, appellees contended that the action was brought maliciously and without cause and that appellant was liable for the tort of emotional distress, malicious abuse and use of process and malicious prosecution. Appellees also included as part of the pretrial order their contention that they were entitled to have a Yost claim considered in the event the jury returned a verdict in their favor.


Books Free Download "Nottingham Company v. Resource Materials" PDF ePub Kindle