Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Delaware 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 |
|---|---|---|
Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp.green2 sentences2018In Beard Research, this court held that a plaintiff’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty was not preempted by DUTSA.55 In reaching that conclusion, the court reasoned that “[t]he same facts are not required to establish all the elements of both the misappropriation and breach of fiduciary duty claims,”56 and the court noted that a defendant could have breached his fiduciary duties by taking and misusing confidential information that did not rise to the level of a trade secret.57 In my view, the distinguishing fact in Beard Research was the existence of a fiduciary relationship, which required 2018CODE ANN. tit. 6, § 2007(a) (West 2018); see also Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp., 812 A.2d 894, 898 (Del. | 1 | 2 |
Cooney v. Osgood Machinery, Inc.green1 sentence2020Also, the Missouri choice of law clause in the NDA, while not applicable to non-contractual claims, indicates that the parties reasonably expected Missouri law to govern the question of confidentiality between them.”); Cooney v. Osgood Mach., Inc., 612 N.E.2d 277, 282 (N.Y. 1993) (“Our decision to apply Missouri law rests as well on another factor that should, at times, play a role in choice of law: the protection of reasonable expectations . . .”). 48 At this stage of the case, it is not possible to determine what state’s law would govern the trade secret claim. | 1 | 1 |
Beard Research, Inc. v. Katesgreen1 sentence2018In Beard Research, this court held that a plaintiff’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty was not preempted by DUTSA.55 In reaching that conclusion, the court reasoned that “[t]he same facts are not required to establish all the elements of both the misappropriation and breach of fiduciary duty claims,”56 and the court noted that a defendant could have breached his fiduciary duties by taking and misusing confidential information that did not rise to the level of a trade secret.57 In my view, the distinguishing fact in Beard Research was the existence of a fiduciary relationship, which required | 1 | 1 |
Pacific Aerospace & Electronics, Inc. v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2016Aerospace & Elecs., Inc. v. Taylor, 295 F. Supp. 2d 1188, 1200 (E.D. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Aoki v. Benihana Inc.
green
1 sentence2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Martinez v. E.i. Dupont De Nemours & Co.
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 20–21. 90 See Pl’s Supp. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.