Opinion

F. W. Means & Co. v. Carstens

  • 428 N.E.2d 251
  • 1981 Ind. App. LEXIS 1738
Court
Indiana Court of Appeals
Filed
Nov 25, 1981
Status
Published
Author
Garrard
On the bench
Staton, Hoffman, Garrard
Cited by
49 cases

noting that summary judgment hearing is not a trial

How later courts described this case

  • noting that summary judgment hearing is not a trial

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

GARRARD, Judge,

concurring.

I concur in the result reached. The restrictive covenant in effect required two distinct things of Carstens: that he not engage in competition and that he not divulge confidential information. If the covenant was valid, Means was entitled to actual damages for its breach. The requested admissions dealt only with Carstens’ potential disclosure of confidential information, Means’ Management Information System and development of competition strategies. Thus, even if the admissions be taken as absolute, they were insufficient to preclude the question of whether Means suffered any actual damage from breach of the covenant.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.