Burndy Corporation v. Cahill
| Decision Date | 20 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 16878.,16878. |
| Citation | 301 F.2d 448 |
| Parties | BURNDY CORPORATION, Appellant, v. F. L. CAHILL and National Connector Corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
George M. Szabad, of Blum, Jolles, Haimoff, Szabad & Gersen, New York City, Charles A. Cox, of Maslon, Kaplan, Edelman, Joseph & Borman, Minneapolis, Minn., on the brief, for appellant.
Arlen C. Christenson, of Lindquist, Fraser & Magnuson, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee National Connector Corporation.
Sherman Winthrop, of Oppenheimer, Hodgson, Brown, Baer & Wolff, St. Paul, Minn., Robert B. Hawkins, St. Paul, Minn., on the brief, for appellee F. L. Cahill.
Before SANBORN and MATTHES, Circuit Judges, and GRAVEN, District Judge.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing the complaint of the plaintiff, Burndy Corporation (Burndy), in an action brought against F. L. Cahill and National Connector Corporation (National) on April 3, 1961, for an injunction to compel performance of the provisions of an employment contract between Burndy and Cahill and to recover damages for its breach. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy.
Cahill is the Director of Sales and Marketing for National, having entered its employ on January 5, 1961. Prior to December 15, 1960, he had been the Sales Manager of the Toledo Facility of Burndy's Omaton Division, under an employment contract entered into by him with Burndy in Ohio on June 10, 1959, which contract contained a restrictive covenant under which Cahill agreed not to accept employment with any competitor of Burndy for two years after termination of his employment with that company.1 The contract also contained provisions against the use by Cahill of confidential information, including lists of customers, knowledge of their needs, technology, etc., acquired by him from Burndy while in its employ. Cahill voluntarily terminated his employment with Burndy on December 15, 1960.
Burndy makes and sells thousands of types and sizes of electrical conductors for use in the electrical and electronics industries, including connectors for customers' requirements. It markets its products throughout the world. National is a competitor of Burndy in the manufacture and marketing of connectors, and was or became aware of Cahill's employment agreement with Burndy. Cahill, on behalf of National, has been dealing with customers of Burndy with whom he formerly dealt while Sales Manager for its Toledo Facility, and has been in contact with Burndy's suppliers in attempting to obtain from them items that Burndy provides for certain of its customers.
The facts, which we have generally and briefly stated above, are taken from Burndy's complaint, which states its claim in much greater detail. The record on appeal consists of the complaint; an amendment to it; the motion of the plaintiff for a preliminary injunction, filed April 27, 1961; the motion of the defendants, filed May 5, 1961, to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; the Memorandum and Order of the District Court, dated ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Basicomputer Corp. v. Scott, No. 91 CV 2178.
...v. Haber, 202 F.Supp. 847 (D.Tex.1962); Burndy Corp. v. Cahill, 196 F.Supp. 619, 622 (D.Minn.1961) (vacated on other grounds, 301 F.2d 448 (8th Cir.1962)). In such an examination, "potential as a well as past damages" are appropriate for consideration. Hulsenbusch v. Davidson Rubber Co., 34......
-
Highland Supply Corp. v. Reynolds Metals Co.
...(7 Cir.), 266 F.2d 56. As Judge Sanborn for this Court has reiterated in our most recent opinion, Burndy Corporation v. F. L. Cahill and National Connector Corporation, 301 F. 2d 448, l.c. 449 (8 Cir. "The attitude of this Court toward attempts to terminate litigation believed to be without......
-
State v. Ralph Williams' North West Chrysler Plymouth, Inc.
...in the case, and this appeal will be treated in the same manner as an appeal from an order granting summary judgment. Burndy Corp. v. Cahill, 301 F.2d 448 (8th Cir. 1962); Highland Supply Corp. v. Reynolds Metals Co., 327 F.2d 725, 729--730 (8th Cir. 1964); Preston v. Duncan, 55 Wash.2d 678......
-
Schneider, Hill & Spangler, Inc. v. Cudmore
...121, 126, 36 S.Ct. 30, 60 L.Ed. 174 (1915); Burndy Corp. v. Cahill, 196 F.Supp. 619, 622 (D.Minn.1961), rev'd on other grounds, 301 F.2d 448 (8th Cir. 1962). In this case, the right asserted is to be free of defendants' competition in the Bridgeport and Stamford areas for two years.2Cf. id.......