Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Arthur L. Perry, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Apex Smelting Co., Defendant-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. - 477 F.2d 137
Argued April 4, 1973.Decided May 1, 1973
Charles B. Lyon, Donnelly, Maky, Renner & Otto, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.
Gerald Palmer, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant-appellee; Barry L. Springel, Jones, Day, Cockley & Reavis, Cleveland, Ohio, on brief.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and EDWARDS and PECK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals from a summary judgment entered on defendant's motion in plaintiff's suit for damages against his employer, Apex Smelting Co. Plaintiff claims that he provided the company with an invention for pouring metal more efficiently which the company appropriated to its own use without any compensation to him. His complaint is phrased as an action for damages resulting from defendant's appropriation of a trade secret belonging to him and as an action for damages resulting from unjust enrichment.
We do not read the plaintiff's deposition, when it is taken as a whole, as an admission by the plaintiff that he expected no consideration for submitting his invention to the company.
The summary judgment for defendant on the trade secret claim is affirmed. The summary judgment as to plaintiff's unjust enrichment action is reversed and the case is remanded for trial on that count.