BAF Communications Corp. v. King

District Court of Appeal of Florida

BAF Communications Corp. v. King

737 So. 2d 659, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10892, 1999 WL 619349

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 13, 1999

DocketNo. 98-3135

StatusPublished

This text of 737 So. 2d 659 (BAF Communications Corp. v. King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BAF Communications Corp. v. King, 737 So. 2d 659, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10892, 1999 WL 619349 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by BAF Communications Corporation [“BAF”] of a non-final order denying its motion for a temporary injunction against Robert C. King [“King”]. King is BAF’s former Vice-President of Sales and Marketing.

We find no reversible error in the trial court’s refusal to issue an injunction against the threatened misappropriation of the company’s “hot leads” list and pricing plan secrets by King. The record supports the trial court’s determination that there was insufficient evidence that there was actual use or threatened use of BAF’s pricing information and the record shows that all of the “hot leads” as of King’s separation had already placed orders. Denial of injunctive relief was within the court’s discretion.

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS, PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by BAF Communications Corporation [“BAF”] of a non-final order denying its motion for a temporary injunction against Robert C. King [“King”]. King is BAF’s former Vice-President of Sales and Marketing.

We find no reversible error in the trial court’s refusal to issue an injunction against the threatened misappropriation of the company’s “hot leads” list and pricing plan secrets by King. The record supports the trial court’s determination that there was insufficient evidence that there was actual use or threatened use of BAF’s pricing information and the record shows that all of the “hot leads” as of King’s separation had already placed orders. Denial of injunctive relief was within the court’s discretion.

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS, PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

737 So. 2d 659, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10892, 1999 WL 619349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baf-communications-corp-v-king-fladistctapp-1999.