MacDonald v. New Science Associates, Inc., No. Cv93 0133928 S (May 5, 1994)

Connecticut Superior Court

MacDonald v. New Science Associates, Inc., No. Cv93 0133928 S (May 5, 1994)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 4914

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 5, 1994

DocketNo. CV93 0133928 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 4914 (MacDonald v. New Science Associates, Inc., No. Cv93 0133928 S (May 5, 1994)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MacDonald v. New Science Associates, Inc., No. Cv93 0133928 S (May 5, 1994), 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 4914 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] [MEMORANDUM OF DECISION] The allegations contained in the Fourth Count relate solely to the employment relationship notwithstanding their characterization of the plaintiff as a "potential competitor". In fact, paragraph six limits the audience for the slanderous statements to "employees". [Quimby v. Kimberly Clark Corp.],28 Conn. App. 660, 670 (1992). [Delre Associates v. Adkins], 3 C.L.T. 46 (1987) involved the defendant setting up a competing enterprise while still employed by the plaintiff. In [AutomaticBusiness Products v. Hankinson], 7 CSCR 739, 742 (1992), the defendant was charged with self-dealing while in the employment relationship without disclosing that fact to the employer. These decisions are clearly distinguishable and inapplicable. Both of them involve activities performed by the defendant outside of the employment relationship. On the contrary, the allegations of this counterclaim are clearly limited to activities which took place within the employment environment. For this reason the motion to strike is granted.

MOTTOLESE, J.

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] [MEMORANDUM OF DECISION] The allegations contained in the Fourth Count relate solely to the employment relationship notwithstanding their characterization of the plaintiff as a "potential competitor". In fact, paragraph six limits the audience for the slanderous statements to "employees". [Quimby v. Kimberly Clark Corp.],28 Conn. App. 660, 670 (1992). [Delre Associates v. Adkins], 3 C.L.T. 46 (1987) involved the defendant setting up a competing enterprise while still employed by the plaintiff. In [AutomaticBusiness Products v. Hankinson], 7 CSCR 739, 742 (1992), the defendant was charged with self-dealing while in the employment relationship without disclosing that fact to the employer. These decisions are clearly distinguishable and inapplicable. Both of them involve activities performed by the defendant outside of the employment relationship. On the contrary, the allegations of this counterclaim are clearly limited to activities which took place within the employment environment. For this reason the motion to strike is granted.

MOTTOLESE, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 4914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macdonald-v-new-science-associates-inc-no-cv93-0133928-s-may-5-1994-connsuperct-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack