Erik Electric Co. v. Elliot

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Erik Electric Co. v. Elliot

403 So. 2d 1041, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21017

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 1, 1981

DocketNo. 81-40

StatusPublished

This text of 403 So. 2d 1041 (Erik Electric Co. v. Elliot) 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

Erik Electric Co. v. Elliot, 403 So. 2d 1041, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21017 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the court for the second time. In the first case we reversed the final judgment which had granted a directed verdict at the end of the plaintiff’s case. Erik Electric Company, Inc., v. Elliot, 375 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). We now reverse again and remand with instructions to enter judgment for the appellant on the accounting of profits realized from use of the customer lists and to hear evidence on monetary damages. We conclude that appellee presented no competent evidence to refute the appellant’s prima facie case showing that distilled listings constituted a trade secret. See Erik Electric Company, supra. See, e. g., Kelly v. Kinsey, 362 So.2d 402, 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (opinion of witness worth no more than the reasons on which it is based). Accord, Le Fevre v. Bear, 113 So.2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the court for the second time. In the first case we reversed the final judgment which had granted a directed verdict at the end of the plaintiff’s case. Erik Electric Company, Inc., v. Elliot, 375 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). We now reverse again and remand with instructions to enter judgment for the appellant on the accounting of profits realized from use of the customer lists and to hear evidence on monetary damages. We conclude that appellee presented no competent evidence to refute the appellant’s prima facie case showing that distilled listings constituted a trade secret. See Erik Electric Company, supra. See, e. g., Kelly v. Kinsey, 362 So.2d 402, 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (opinion of witness worth no more than the reasons on which it is based). Accord, Le Fevre v. Bear, 113 So.2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

403 So. 2d 1041, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erik-electric-co-v-elliot-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack