Northern Electric Company, Inc. v. Torma

819 N.E.2d 417 (2005)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Northern Electric Company, Inc. v. Torma

Indiana Supreme Court
819 N.E.2d 417 (2005)

Facts

Northern Electric Company, Inc. (Northern) (plaintiff) was an electric-motor repair shop that also repaired servo motors. Servo motors are difficult to diagnose and repair. Patrick L. Torma (defendant) became supervisor of Northern’s servo-motor repair service in the mid-1990s. During his employment with Northern, Torma compiled a large amount of information about servo motors that aided his work. Torma recorded data readings and information he gained from repairing motors and directed Northern employees to do the same. Torma kept notes from conversations with manufacturer representatives and other servo-motor shops, and he included excerpts from manuals. Torma also pulled information from service bulletins maintained by Northern and internet sites. Torma compiled all this data on a CD-ROM that he organized at night on his home computer. Torma kept the CD-ROM locked in his toolbox, on his person, or at home. In June 2002, Torma resigned from Northern because of a compensation disagreement. Northern told Torma to leave the CD-ROM with his data compilation behind, but Torma refused. Torma started his own servo-repair company, Hy-Tech Automation Repair, Inc. (Hy-Tech) (defendant). Northern filed suit against Torma and Hy-Tech, seeking a temporary restraining order and temporary and permanent injunctions against Torma, alleging that the data compilation was a trade secret belonging to Northern. The trial court held in favor of Torma and Hy-Tech, holding that the data compilation belonged to Torma and was not a trade secret. Northern appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Riley, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 796,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership