# F. W. Means & Co. v. Carstens

> Indiana Court of Appeals · November 25, 1981 · 428 N.E.2d 251

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9742355

## Case

- **Full name:** F. W. MEANS & COMPANY, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. Thomas W. CARSTENS, Et Al. Appellees (Defendants Below)
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** November 25, 1981
- **Citations:** 428 N.E.2d 251; 1981 Ind. App. LEXIS 1738
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Garrard
- **Judges:** Staton, Hoffman, Garrard
- **Cited by:** 49 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9742355

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that summary judgment hearing is not a trial

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9742355. Public record. Not legal advice.