Midland-Ross Corporation v. Sunbeam Equipment Corporation and Robert W. Smith
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Crown Industries, Inc. v. Kawneer Company (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1971)
- Crouthamel v. Dep't of Transp. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019)
- Gilson v. Republic of Ireland (District Court, District of Columbia 1984)
- M. Bryce & Associates, Inc. v. Gladstone (Wis. Ct. App. 1982)
- Lodge 802, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers v. Sun Ship, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1981)
- Van Dyk Research Corp. v. SCM Corp. (In re Van Dyk Research Corp.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey 1981)
- Sims v. Mack Truck Corp. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1980)
- General Business Services, Inc. v. Rouse (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1980)
- Permagrain Products, Inc. v. U. S. Mat & Rubber Co. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1980)
- International Election Systems Corp. v. Shoup (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1978)
- Saemann v. EVEREST & JENNINGS, INTERNATIONAL (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1972)
- Bravo v. Board of Education of City of Chicago (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1972)
- Erie Lackawanna Railway Co. v. Lighter Captains Union, Local 996, I. L. A. (District Court, D. New Jersey 1972)
- Sobel Paper & Wire Co. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1972)
- Midland Ross Corp. v. Sunbeam Equipment Corp. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1971)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Midland-Ross Corporation (“Midland”) brought an action against Sunbeam Equipment Corporation (“Sunbeam”) and Robert W. Smith for injunctive relief to prevent disclosure of alleged trade secrets to Sunbeam by Smith, a former employee of Midland, now in Sunbeam’s employ. A temporary restraining order was granted by the district court, and testimony was then heard on Midland’s application for a preliminary injunction. At the conclusion of this testimony, the district court entered an order dissolving the temporary restraining order and denying the request for a preliminary injunction. This appeal is involved only with Midland’s right to a preliminary injunction to prevent a threatened disclosure and misappropriation of its trade secrets.
“The granting or denying of a preliminary injunction rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed upon appeal ‘unless contrary to some rule of equity, or the result of an improvident exercise of judicial discretion.’ ” Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co. v. Shelley Knitting Mills, Inc., 268 F.2d 569, 573 (C.A.3, 1959).
In an opinion filed with its order, the district court made extensive and detailed findings of fact. In essence, it was determined that nothing was ever disclosed to the employee in the nature of a confidential or secret disclosure so as to give rise to a claim that he had been given trade secrets. Further, the district court found that all of the alleged secrets claimed by Midland were forfeited by its sale to the public of its product.
We have carefully examined the record in this case and find substantial evidence to support the district court’s findings. We conclude that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the district court in refusing to issue a preliminary injunction.
The order of the district court will be affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.