FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Parrish’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 23 Cal. 4th 163 - Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. · 32 Cal. 4th 958 - Zamos v. Stroud · Mai Systems Corporation v. Peak Computer Inc Mai Systems Corporation · Continental Car-Na-Var Corp. v. Moseley · PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, ... or willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party.” California courts have held that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“experts admitted there was no valid scientific methodology to predict trade secret misuse and agreed that no trade secrets were misappropriated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“expert declarations suggesting there was a scientific methodology to predict the likelihood of trade secret misuse,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.