Stampede Tool Warehouse, Inc. v. May
Illinois Appellate Court
651 N.E.2d 209, 272 Ill. App. 3d 580, 209 Ill. Dec. 281 (1995)
- Written by Meagan Messina, JD
Facts
From October 1990 to May 1991, Mark May and Fred Moshier (defendants) worked for Stampede Tool Warehouse, Inc. (Stampede) (plaintiff). Stampede sold automotive products to “jobbers” such as service stations and automotive stores or dealers. Stampede developed its customer list of 11,000 jobbers through prospecting, spending an estimated $50,000 per month to obtain new customers. The information on the customer list was kept confidential and could only be accessed by two individuals. Stampede took several precautions to ensure confidentiality, such as keeping salespeople in confined areas and informing all job applicants that any information received on the job was Stampede’s property. In April 1991, Stampede’s president noticed unauthorized photocopies were being made after hours. Moshier quit his job and started working for another company, where Moshier reconstructed his customer list from Stampede from memory. Moshier started his own business on July 12, 1991, and solicited some of Moshier’s customers from Stampede. Moshier denied that May worked for Moshier at Moshier’s company. On July 24, 1991, the court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining May and Moshier from misappropriating Stampede’s customer list, a trade secret. Stampede requested a preliminary injunction. Permanent injunctions were granted on October 14, 1993, with the court finding that the customer list was a trade secret and that May and Moshier misappropriated the list in violation of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act (ITSA). May and Moshier appealed the injunctions.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cerda, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.