Leonardi v. Sherry
Missouri Supreme Court
137 S.W.3d 462 (2004)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Craig Leonardi (defendant) and Radiant Research Inc. (Radiant) (plaintiff) entered several agreements under which Leonardi would conduct some clinical trials for Radiant and covenanted not to conduct clinical trials for third parties for one year following the termination of Leonardi’s agreements. Leonardi terminated his agreements with Radiant, and Radiant sued Leonardi, alleging six counts including breach of contract and seeking damages and injunctive relief as to each count. Radiant also sought to enforce the restrictive covenants. Leonardi responded with four counterclaims, including breach of contract, and asserted four affirmative defenses, including laches, estoppel, and unclean hands. The trial court denied Radiant’s request for a preliminary injunction. Leonardi then sought a ruling on the merits of Radiant’s equitable claims and whether a jury trial would be available to him. The court decided that Radiant’s equitable and legal claims were both still pending, that equitable claims would be decided by the court, and that Leonardi was not entitled to a jury trial under the equitable-cleanup doctrine. Leonardi filed a request for writ of prohibition, arguing that the equitable-cleanup doctrine was not applicable and that he was entitled to a jury trial.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Price Jr., J.)
Dissent (Benton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
