Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Religious Technology Center v. Wollersheim

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
796 F.2d 1076 (1986)


Facts

The Church of Scientology (the Church) (plaintiff) was a religious organization that provided adherents with a method of self-improvement called auditing. According to the Church, the auditing process required specific content, supervision, and special equipment. The Church’s auditing process had to be executed in a specific sequence. The Church took measures to ensure that high-level auditing materials remained secret. The Church granted access to auditing materials only on the condition of strict confidentiality. The auditing materials were not copyrighted. David Mayo (defendant) was involved in the original creation of the auditing materials. After a dispute with the Church, Mayo formed a new church called the Church of the New Civilization (Mayo’s church) (defendant). Both churches offered substantially the same teaching but were run by different people. In 1983, individuals not party to this case stole high-level auditing materials from the Church. Although the Church recovered the auditing materials, the Church was convinced that copies of the materials were given to Mayo’s church. The Church sued Mayo’s church, arguing that Mayo’s church misappropriated the Church’s trade secrets. The district court granted the Church’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the Church’s adherents would suffer irreparable spiritual harm by unauthorized dissemination of the auditing materials. The Church did not allege commercial harm. Mayo’s church appealed, arguing the auditing materials were not a protectable trade secret.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Pregerson, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 176,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.