Span-Deck, Inc. v. Fab-Con, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
677 F.2d 1237 · 1982
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently May 2005
9 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Rideout v. United States · Ingraham v. Wright
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the jury found that Fabcon continued to use Span-Deck’s trade secrets acquired as a result of a confidential relationship with Span-Deck and although a reasonable royalty is one fair method of computing damages in such a case ..., it does not follow that the jury would have necessarily computed the same damages had it treated the contract as terminated as of October 1975. In sum, a remand for determination of compensatory damages based on the value of nonpatent consideration received by Fab-con during the period from cessation of royalties until the October 1975 contract termination and damages for the misappropriation of trade secrets after contract termination is in order.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The court then ordered, id: [T]he judgment against Fabcon for breach of contract is reversed; however, because the jury found that Fabcon received nonpatent consideration, the cause is remanded for a determination of the value of nonpatent rights received by Fabcon from the time Fabcon ceased payment of royalties until termination of the contract on October 6, 1975. In addition, a determination of damages for misappropriation of trade secrets after the contract termination is ordered.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Because Rauenhorst established justification or ‘the presence of exceptional circumstances which show that no tort was in fact committed and lawful excuse which excludes actual and legal malice,’ Johnson v. Radde, 293 Minn. 409 , 196 N.W.2d 478, 480 (1972), the district court should either have directed a verdict for Rauenhorst bn the tortious inducement claim or entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.