No employee of another, who in the course and within the scope of his employment receives any confidential matter or information, shall knowingly, without the consent of his employer, furnish or disclose such matter or information to any person not privileged to acquire it.
Avery Dennison Corp. v. Kitsonas, 118 F. Supp. 2d 848 (S.D. Ohio 2000). · cites it 2ד” Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.81 (Breach of Confidence by Employee).”
ALTA Analytics, Inc. v. Muuss, 75 F. Supp. 2d 773 (S.D. Ohio 1999). · cites it 2ד” Ohio Rev.Code § 1333.81. For a plaintiff to prevail in action for misappropriation of a trade secret, that the plaintiff must establish three facts by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) “that a trade secret exists,” (2) “that the trade secret was acquired as a result of a…”
Valco Cincinnati, Inc. v. N & D Machining Serv., Inc., 492 N.E.2d 814 (Ohio 1986). “It must be pointed out that Ohio has statutorily prohibited employees, in broadest terms, from disseminating or disclosing confidential matters of *45 the employer without the knowledge and consent of the latter.”
Basicomputer Corp. v. Scott, 791 F. Supp. 1280 (N.D. Ohio 1991). · cites it 2דSee also 13 Ohio Rev.Code § 1333.81. In a case such as this, as noted by Judge Aldrich, “it is unnecessary to split hairs with respect to the meaning of ‘trade secret’ it is sufficient that the defendants violated the plain terms of the employment agreement for which they…”
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Yoder, 950 F. Supp. 1348 (S.D. Ohio 1997). · cites it 3דOhio Rev.Code § 1333.81. On the day the legislature enacted the Ohio Trade Secrets Act, it also amended § 1333.”
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Kramer, 816 F. Supp. 1242 (N.D. Ohio 1992). · cites it 2ד” There is also a presumption of secrecy as regards such lists “when the owner thereof takes measures designed to prevent it, in the ordinary course of business, from being available to persons other than those selected by the owner to have access thereto for limited purposes.”
Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Wiest, 2016 Ohio 8166 (Ohio 2016). “84(b) {¶ 13} Despite having found that Wiest had no notice that his alleged disclosure of Stanley’s confidential information to the SEC was at issue, the panel and board found that by engaging in that conduct, Wiest violated R.C. 1333.81 (prohibiting an employee from knowingly…”
Hydrofarm, Inc. v. Orendorff, 905 N.E.2d 658 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). “; disclosure of confidential information without Hydro-farm’s consent, a violation of R.C. 1333.81; breach of a confidential relationship; breach of fiduciary duty; and conversion, Hydrofarm later sued Orendorff in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.”
QFS Transp., LLC v. Huguely (S.D. Ohio 2022). · cites it 2ד” Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.81. dispositive, a business must take “active steps” to maintain secrecy “in order to enjoy presumptive trade secret status.”
QFS Transp., LLC v. Murphy (S.D. Ohio 2022). · cites it 2ד” Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.81. dispositive, a business must take “active steps” to maintain secrecy “in order to enjoy presumptive trade secret status.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.