10 California opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bed, Bath & Beyond of La Jolla, Inc. v. La Jolla Village Square Venture Partnersgreen2 sentences2001It entails an enhanced burden of proving intentionally wrongful conduct by the defendant, and permits the defendant a broader defense based on the competition privilege. ( PMC, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at pp. 595-602, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 877 ; accord, Bed, Bath & Beyond of La Jolla, Inc. v. La Jolla Village Square Venture Partners (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 867, 878-879 , 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 830 .) We fully agree with the analysis and views expressed in PMC. 2001It entails an enhanced burden of proving intentionally wrongful conduct by the defendant, and permits the defendant a broader defense based on the competition privilege. ( PMC, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at pp. 595-602, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 877 ; accord, Bed, Bath & Beyond of La Jolla, Inc. v. La Jolla Village Square Venture Partners (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 867, 878-879 , 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 830 .) We fully agree with the analysis and views expressed in PMC. | 2 | 4 |
A-Mark Coin Co. v. General Mills, Inc.green2 sentences1995Thus, in the absence of prohibition by statute, illegitimate means, or some other unlawful element, a defendant seeking to increase his own business may cut rates or prices, allow discounts or rebates, enter into secret negotiations behind the plaintiff’s back, refuse to deal with him or threaten to discharge employees who do, or even refuse to deal with third parties unless they cease dealing with the plaintiff, all without incurring liability.’ ” (A-Mark Coin Co. v. General Mills, Inc. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 312, 324 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 859 ], quoting Prosser, The Law of Torts (4th ed. 1971) § 13 1995Thus, in the absence of prohibition by statute, illegitimate means, or some other unlawful element, a defendant seeking to increase his own business may cut rates or prices, allow discounts or rebates, enter into secret negotiations behind the plaintiff’s back, refuse to deal with him or threaten to discharge employees who do, or even refuse to deal with third parties unless they cease dealing with the plaintiff, all without incurring liability.’ ” (A-Mark Coin Co. v. General Mills, Inc. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 312, 324 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 859 ], quoting Prosser, The Law of Torts (4th ed. 1971) § 13 | 2 | 2 |
Saunders v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2015(Saunders v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 832, 843 .) Obtaining a public works contract by intentionally violating the prevailing wage laws is clearly unlawful, thereby defeating the privilege. 7. 1995(Accord, Saunders v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 832, 843 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 438 ].) Plaintiff cites Bert G. | 1 | 2 |
GAB Business Services, Inc. v. Lindsey & Newsom Claim Services, Inc.green2 sentences2002Instructional error in a civil case requires reversal “ ‘ “where it seems probable” that the error “prejudicially affected the verdict.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (GAB Business Services, Inc. v. Lindsey & Newsom Claim Services, Inc. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 409, 423 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 665 ], citing Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 580 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 ].) Although difficult to ascertain, the true crux of Gemini’s instructional challenge appears to be that the court improperly required it to establish CCS’s separate tort of misappropriation of trade secrets to 2002Instructional error in a civil case requires reversal “ ‘ “where it seems probable” that the error “prejudicially affected the verdict.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (GAB Business Services, Inc. v. Lindsey & Newsom Claim Services, Inc. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 409, 423 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 665 ], citing Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 580 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 ].) Although difficult to ascertain, the true crux of Gemini’s instructional challenge appears to be that the court improperly required it to establish CCS’s separate tort of misappropriation of trade secrets to | 1 | 1 |
Soule v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences2002Instructional error in a civil case requires reversal “ ‘ “where it seems probable” that the error “prejudicially affected the verdict.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (GAB Business Services, Inc. v. Lindsey & Newsom Claim Services, Inc. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 409, 423 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 665 ], citing Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 580 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 ].) Although difficult to ascertain, the true crux of Gemini’s instructional challenge appears to be that the court improperly required it to establish CCS’s separate tort of misappropriation of trade secrets to 2002Instructional error in a civil case requires reversal “ ‘ “where it seems probable” that the error “prejudicially affected the verdict.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (GAB Business Services, Inc. v. Lindsey & Newsom Claim Services, Inc. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 409, 423 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 665 ], citing Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 580 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 ].) Although difficult to ascertain, the true crux of Gemini’s instructional challenge appears to be that the court improperly required it to establish CCS’s separate tort of misappropriation of trade secrets to | 1 | 1 |
Charles C. Chapman Building Co. v. California Martgreen2 sentences1997Chapman Building Co. v. California Mart (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 846, 855-856 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 830 ].) In short, the competition privilege furthers free enterprise by protecting the right to compete fairly in the marketplace. 1997Chapman Building Co. v. California Mart (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 846, 855-856 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 830 ].) In short, the competition privilege furthers free enterprise by protecting the right to compete fairly in the marketplace. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
PMC, Inc. v. Saban Entertainment, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015In rejecting the manufacturer’s cause of action for interference with prospective economic advantage, the PMC court made reference to the “competition privilege.” 38 (PMC, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 602 .) Under that privilege, “‘a competitor is free to divert business to himself as long as he uses fair and reasonable means.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 603.) In that case, there was no evidence that the competitor had engaged in any wrongful or illegitimate conduct, but was “simply engaging in hard-nosed and ultimately successful bargaining for the exclusive license also sought by [the plaintiff 2015In rejecting the manufacturer’s cause of action for interference with prospective economic advantage, the PMC court made reference to the “[competition [privilege.” (PMC, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 602 , italics omitted.) Under that privilege, “ ‘a competitor is free to divert business to *293 himself as long as he uses fair and reasonable means.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 603.) In that case, there was no evidence that the competitor had engaged in any wrongful or illegitimate conduct, but was “simply engaging in hard-nosed and ultimately successful bargaining for the exclusive license also sou | 3 | 2001–2015 |
Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.
green
2 sentences2002The term ‘wrongful’ is far too broad and covers much activity which should not defeat the competition privilege.” (San Francisco Design Center, supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at p. 43 .) In Della Penna , the court cited San Francisco Design Center favorably for the proposition that to defeat the privilege of competition the defendant’s conduct must be “ ‘unlawful or illegitimate.’ ” (Della Penna, supra, 11 Cal.4th 376, 391 .) We conclude the nebulous “industry standards” test advanced by Gemini does not satisfy Della Penna’’s requirement that the defendant’s conduct “was wrongful by some legal measure 2002The term ‘wrongful’ is far too broad and covers much activity which should not defeat the competition privilege.” (San Francisco Design Center, supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at p. 43 .) In Della Penna , the court cited San Francisco Design Center favorably for the proposition that to defeat the privilege of competition the defendant’s conduct must be “ ‘unlawful or illegitimate.’ ” (Della Penna, supra, 11 Cal.4th 376, 391 .) We conclude the nebulous “industry standards” test advanced by Gemini does not satisfy Della Penna’’s requirement that the defendant’s conduct “was wrongful by some legal measure | 2 | 1997–2002 |
San Francisco Design Center Associates v. Portman Companies
green
1 sentence2002The term ‘wrongful’ is far too broad and covers much activity which should not defeat the competition privilege.” (San Francisco Design Center, supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at p. 43 .) In Della Penna , the court cited San Francisco Design Center favorably for the proposition that to defeat the privilege of competition the defendant’s conduct must be “ ‘unlawful or illegitimate.’ ” (Della Penna, supra, 11 Cal.4th 376, 391 .) We conclude the nebulous “industry standards” test advanced by Gemini does not satisfy Della Penna’’s requirement that the defendant’s conduct “was wrongful by some legal measure | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Guard-Life Corp. v. S. Parker Hardware Manufacturing Corp.
green
2 sentences1996In Guard-Life Corp. v. S. Parker Hardware Mfg. (1980) 428 N.Y.S.2d 628 [ 50 N.Y.2d 183 , 406 N.E.2d 445 ], the New York high court was faced with a distributorship contract which was interfered with by another. 1996In Guard-Life Corp. v. S. Parker Hardware Mfg. (1980) 428 N.Y.S.2d 628 [ 50 N.Y.2d 183 , 406 N.E.2d 445 ], the New York high court was faced with a distributorship contract which was interfered with by another. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Edward Vantine Studios, Inc. v. Fraternal Composite Service, Inc.
green
1 sentence1996(E.g., Edward Vantine Stud. v. Fraternal Composite (Iowa Ct.App. 1985) 373 N.W.2d 512 [course of conduct together with indemnity agreement]; cf. Clements v. Withers (Tex. 1969) 437 S.W.2d 818 .) These cases are not applicable here. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Clements v. Withers
green
1 sentence1996(E.g., Edward Vantine Stud. v. Fraternal Composite (Iowa Ct.App. 1985) 373 N.W.2d 512 [course of conduct together with indemnity agreement]; cf. Clements v. Withers (Tex. 1969) 437 S.W.2d 818 .) These cases are not applicable here. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Katz v. Kapper
green
1 sentence1995(Katz v. Kapper, supra, 7 Cal.App.2d at p. 6 .) The decision implies the coercive act must be illegal; if the “coercion” in Katz was insufficient to defeat the competition privilege, it is difficult to imagine what conduct would be sufficient if it was not unlawful. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Jacuzzi v. Jacuzzi Bros., Inc.
green
2 sentences1980Furthermore, the issue is deemed foreclosed by the summary judgment. 2 For example, his notation on an order “Do not sell to Bughouse.” He testified that he believed they were considering a change of name from Bughouse to Bugs, etc. In any case, the merchandise went to Bughouse. 3 Another California case relied upon by defendants, Jacuzzi v. Jacuzzi Bros., Inc. (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 52 Cal.Rptr. 147 ], is inapplicable. 1980Furthermore, the issue is deemed foreclosed by the summary judgment. 2 For example, his notation on an order “Do not sell to Bughouse.” He testified that he believed they were considering a change of name from Bughouse to Bugs, etc. In any case, the merchandise went to Bughouse. 3 Another California case relied upon by defendants, Jacuzzi v. Jacuzzi Bros., Inc. (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 52 Cal.Rptr. 147 ], is inapplicable. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.