Cases — September 2nd through 8th, 2018
Contract/Noncompete/Trade Secret/Wrongful Termination
*Johns Manville Corporation v. Knauf Insulation, LLC (10th Cir., September 5, 2018) (affirming denial of Manville’s motion for a new trial on its trade secrets claim—lengthy procedural discussion)
Miscellaneous
Kyco Services, LLC, v. Department of Workforce Services (Utah Ct. App., September 7, 2018) (affirming, as supported by substantial evidence, determination that Kyco failed to make required unemployment insurance contributions)
Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease
*Groom v. Commissioner (10th Cir., September 4, 2018) (affirming denial of disability benefits)
*Romo v. Commissioner (10th Cir., September 5, 2018) (affirming denial of disability benefits: Romo was able to perform unskilled work and was thus not disabled)
*Cases marked with an asterisk are 10th Circuit cases the court declared not to be binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.
*Johns Manville Corporation v. Knauf Insulation, LLC (10th Cir., September 5, 2018) (affirming denial of Manville’s motion for a new trial on its trade secrets claim—lengthy procedural discussion)
Miscellaneous
Kyco Services, LLC, v. Department of Workforce Services (Utah Ct. App., September 7, 2018) (affirming, as supported by substantial evidence, determination that Kyco failed to make required unemployment insurance contributions)
Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease
*Groom v. Commissioner (10th Cir., September 4, 2018) (affirming denial of disability benefits)
*Romo v. Commissioner (10th Cir., September 5, 2018) (affirming denial of disability benefits: Romo was able to perform unskilled work and was thus not disabled)
*Cases marked with an asterisk are 10th Circuit cases the court declared not to be binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.