About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Spring 2026)

handle is hein.ali/retuc9520 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2026 Citations UNFAIR COMPETITION 3D CHAPTER 1. THE FREEDOM TO COMPETE § 1. General Principles D.Kan.2025. Quot. in sup. In a dispute arising from a roofing subcontract with city, roofing subcontractor sued competitor, alleging, inter alia, that competitor engaged in unfair competition by improperly acquiring subcontractor's confidential business information. This court granted competitor's motion for summary judgment, holding that subcontractor offered no evidence that competitor obtained the information through improper means, let alone that obtaining that business information could serve as the basis for an unfair-competition claim under Missouri law. The court considered subcontractor's reliance on Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 1, under which an unfair-competition claim could be made for acts that were actionable under general principles of common law, and pointed out that subcontractor failed to cite Missouri law that made use of confidential information actionable as common-law unfair competition. CST Industries, Inc v. Tank Connection, L.L.C., 780 F.Supp.3d 1150, 1167. CHAPTER 2. DECEPTIVE MARKETING § 2. Deceptive Marketing: General Principle D.Kan.2025. Cit. in ftn., com. (c) cit. in ftn. Roofing subcontractor sued competitor and competitor's manager, alleging that defendants used deceptive marketing to pass off plaintiff's roofing experience as their own when they used the summary of experience of plaintiff s former employee-now employed by competitor-to obtain a city roofing subcontract. This court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that subcontractor's deceptive marketing claim under Restatement Third of Unfair Competition § 2 failed as a matter of law, because plaintiff failed to show that defendants attempted to pass off plaintiff s services as defendants' own. The court emphasized that an unfair-competition claim under § 2 based on deceptive marketing required proof that defendants' representation attempted to deceive another into believing that their own services were actually those of plaintiff. CST Industries, Inc v. Tank Connection, L.L.C., 780 F.Supp.3d 1150, 1164, 1165. COPYRIGHT C2026 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.