Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Wound Care Centers, Inc. v. Catalane

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-336 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 8, 2011)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Wound Care Centers, Inc. v. Catalane

2 Citing cases

  1. Haywood v. Univ. of Pittsburgh

    976 F. Supp. 2d 606 (W.D. Pa. 2013)   Cited 43 times
    In Haywood, the District Court allowed extrinsic evidence to establish the existence of an oral agreement for the defendant to buy out the plaintiff's prior employment contract where the defendant had conceded that the written employment agreement, despite containing an integration clause, was not representative of the entire agreement between the parties.

    Bell Fuel Corp. v. Cattolico, 375 Pa.Super. 238, 544 A.2d 450, 461 (1988) (citing Carl A. Colteryahn Dairy, 203 A.2d 469, 472–73 (affording no protection to delivery route listings that were not a particular secret, easily discoverable and common knowledge)). See e.g., Spring Steels, Inc. v. Molloy, 400 Pa. 354, 162 A.2d 370, 375 (1960) (customer lists that are publicly available are not particular secrets of the employer entitled to protection); Vincent Horwitz Co. v. Cooper, 352 Pa. 7, 41 A.2d 870, 871 (1945); Agra Enter., Inc. v. Brunozzi, 302 Pa.Super. 166, 448 A.2d 579, 582 (1982); see also Wound Care Ctr., Inc. v. Catalane, Civ. No. 10–336, 2011 WL 553875, at *16 (W.D.Pa. Feb. 8, 2011). Haywood did not address whether the press release contained confidential information in his response to the University's motion for summary judgment.

  2. Wound Care Centers, Inc. v. Catalane

    Civil No. 10-336 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2011)

    I. Background On February 8, 2011, this court issued a memorandum opinion and order, (the "Memorandum Opinion" (ECF No. 65)), denying in its entirety plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 3) against defendants. Wound Care Centers, Inc. v. Catalane, No. 10-336, 2011 WL 553875, at *27 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 8, 2011). In their motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs moved this court to enjoin, for a period of one year within twenty miles of OVGH, the physician defendants from: