Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
In today’s fiercely competitive business environment, safeguarding trade secrets and confidential information has never been more crucial. A recent legal clash between Brand Services, an industrial scaffolding company, and Irex Corporation, a competitor, illustrates the challenges of protecting intellectual property in the digital age. This blog post examines the dispute, the key legal arguments presented, and the court’s ruling on the Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act (LUTSA) and common law conversion claims.
The Alleged Misappropriation
Brand Services accused its former employee, James Stanich, of stealing trade secrets when he joined Irex. Stanich allegedly transferred sensitive files from his work computer, including information about Brand Services’ proprietary software used for invoicing and job tracking. Brand Services claimed that Irex leveraged this stolen information to develop similar software, giving them an unfair competitive advantage.
In a recent decision, the Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment granted in favor of attorneys in a legal malpractice lawsuit. The case, highlights the critical distinction between contractual and delictual claims in insurance disputes and the potential impact on the applicable statute of limitations.
In a recent Louisiana Court of Appeal ruling, the 
A recent decision from the Louisiana Court of Appeal has shed light on the nuanced boundary between whistleblowing and misconduct in the workplace. The case, Melancon v. Town of Amite City, involved a police officer terminated for running unauthorized criminal background checks and lying about it. While the officer claimed he was acting as a whistleblower, the court ultimately upheld his termination, raising important questions about the limits of whistleblower protection and the importance of adhering to internal policies and procedures.
A recent United States Court of Appeals ruling for the 
A recent 
A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision underscores the importance of insurance agents fulfilling their duties with reasonable diligence and care. In 
Today, in the age of ever-prevalent social media, it is easier than ever to express opinions about events and even other people. It is also easier for people to find one another’s statements, even if the people involved don’t know one another. Statements about emotionally charged events can harm a person’s reputation, social standard, or self-worth. The courts must balance free speech and private citizens’ protection. The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal recently considered such a situation. 
Every doctor places great value on their professional reputation in the medical world. This is because a doctor’s reputation is one of the primary ways a community judges the doctor’s standard of care. When this reputation is wrongly called into question, a doctor may want to use legal avenues to clear their name. A Parish of Tammany doctor found their reputation challenged and decided to fight back with their own counter-lawsuit to establish that he was not responsible for a woman’s death after his treatment. 
There are many instances when an employer may be held liable for the actions of their employees, even when the former was completely uninvolved in the tort, or wrongdoing. This scenario is referred to as vicarious liability. The court must take several factors into consideration when dealing with a vicarious liability action, as evidenced by a Caddo Parish case involving a Sheriff and his Deputy.