Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Conseco Finance v. N. American Mortgage, 01-1173 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 01-1173 Visitors: 54
Filed: Jan. 15, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-1173 _ Conseco Finance Servicing * Corporation., * * Appellant, * * vs. * Appeal from the United * States District Court North American Mortgage Company, * for the Eastern District * of Missouri. Appellee. * * [UNPUBLISHED] _ Submitted: September 12, 2001 Filed: January 15, 2002 _ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE,1 District Judge. _ PER CURIAM. Conseco Finance Servicing Corporation (“Conseco”) sough
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 01-1173 ___________ Conseco Finance Servicing * Corporation., * * Appellant, * * vs. * Appeal from the United * States District Court North American Mortgage Company, * for the Eastern District * of Missouri. Appellee. * * [UNPUBLISHED] __________ Submitted: September 12, 2001 Filed: January 15, 2002 __________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE,1 District Judge. _________ PER CURIAM. Conseco Finance Servicing Corporation (“Conseco”) sought a temporary restraining order and, subsequently, a permanent injunction against North American 1 The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United States Senior District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation. Mortgage Company (“North American”) alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and tortious interference with business relationships. The district court2 granted a limited permanent injunction which required one former Conseco employee to return 14 customer files he had at his home. Conseco appealed to this Court arguing the district court erred in concluding that the customer lists were not trade secrets, that North American could solicit at-will employees, and that no trade secrets were misappropriated. The district court issued a very well reasoned opinion discussing the relevant facts and applying the well-established law in both trade secret and employment law. We conclude that a comprehensive opinion in this case would lack precedential value, accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s rulings without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 2 The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer