Memc Electronic Materials, Inc. v. Nithiananthan

Missouri Court of Appeals

Memc Electronic Materials, Inc. v. Nithiananthan

276 S.W.3d 878, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 91, 2009 WL 307476

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 10, 2009

DocketED 91136

StatusPublished

This text of 276 S.W.3d 878 (Memc Electronic Materials, Inc. v. Nithiananthan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Memc Electronic Materials, Inc. v. Nithiananthan, 276 S.W.3d 878, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 91, 2009 WL 307476 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

MEMC Electronics Materials, Inc. (hereinafter, “Employer”) appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Vijayanathan Nithianan-than (hereinafter, “Employee”) on Employer’s petition seeking injunctive relief to enforce a non-competition and confidentiality agreement. Both Employer and Employee believe the trial court failed to grant summary judgment in their favor. Employer raises two points on appeal; Employee cross-appeals, raising four points. This Court consolidated these appeals.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. There is no genuine issue of material fact and Defendant was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Rule 74.04. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

MEMC Electronics Materials, Inc. (hereinafter, “Employer”) appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Vijayanathan Nithianan-than (hereinafter, “Employee”) on Employer’s petition seeking injunctive relief to enforce a non-competition and confidentiality agreement. Both Employer and Employee believe the trial court failed to grant summary judgment in their favor. Employer raises two points on appeal; Employee cross-appeals, raising four points. This Court consolidated these appeals.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. There is no genuine issue of material fact and Defendant was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Rule 74.04. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 S.W.3d 878, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 91, 2009 WL 307476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/memc-electronic-materials-inc-v-nithiananthan-moctapp-2009.