Court Opinion

ID: 9689643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:41:57.338077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:51.056392
License: Public Domain

DUNN, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent from the majority opinion. I would hold that there is credible evidence to support the jury verdict for respondent Mid-America Marketing Corporation.
Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal involves consideration of the evidence and inferences derived from the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict. Engberg v. Ford Motor Co., 87 S.D. 196, 205 N.W.2d 104 (1973). We will consider appellants’ evidence only insofar as it tends to amplify, clarify or explain evidence in support of the jury verdict. Nugent v. Quam, 82 S.D. 583, 152 N.W.2d 371 (1967). In fact, we must assume that all conflicts in the testimony were resolved in the respondent’s favor by the jury. Hannahs v. Noah, 83 S.D. 296, 158 N.W.2d 678 (1968).
With these standards of review in mind, there is ample support in the record for the jury to conclude that:
(1) Mid-America and Dakota together produced a product between December 27,1974, and May 27,1975, which was legally protectible as a trade secret.
(2) Between May 27, 1975, and July 25, 1975, Dakota disclosed the trade secret to LaMaur in breach of its confidential relationship with Mid-America, and thus both Dakota and LaMaur appropriated the trade secret to their own use without the consent of Mid-America.
(3) Actual damages totaling $250,000 were sustained by Mid-America as a result of defendants’ appropriation of the trade secret.
(4)There were acts of oppression, fraud or malice by the defendants sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages to Mid-America.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court based upon the jury verdict awarding $270,000 for the unauthorized disclosure and use of a trade secret belonging to Mid-America.