This is a long shot question but its driving me nuts?

Question

I am researching the a case of Adkins vs Sky Blue inc. What rule did they use in determining the outcome? Ive read it over and over and still cannot understand.

Answer 1

You can't be very interested. You didn't give a state, a year, or any other information. Maybe you don't know because you didn't read the case.

Answer 2

The holding was that he the state supreme court's decision creating such liability applies prospectively only, not retroactively.

Quoting from the holding: "The common law has served us well because it is flexible, able to grow and meet the requirements of changing conditions and a different society. There are times when change is necessary; but the doctrine of stare decisis is also important in an organized society. Change, therefore, should occur slowly, deliberately after much experience, and if possible so as not to affect vested rights or things in the past."
Adkins v. Sky Blue, Inc., 701 P.2d 549, 551 (Wyo. 1985)

The court also said "the constitution neither prohibits nor requires retrospective effect and the federal Constitution has no voice upon the subject; and, the accepted rule today is that in appropriate cases in the interests of justice, a court may make its decision prospective.” Ibid at 552, citing Ostwald v. State, Wyo., 538 P.2d 1298, 1303 (1975).

So, the rule is basic jurisprudence. The court did what it that was appropriate in the interests of justice, and determine that rulings apply forward, but not retroactively.

Side Note: The posters above state a valid point. Most people don't have access to Westlaw or Lexis to find the ruling, let alone read it.

Answer 3

From what I saw, it looks like perhaps you are a law student who is studying the case? I would recommend talking with other students in your class rather than Yahoo Answers -- here, any Yahoo can just answer your questions -- right or wrong.

Not being a student of law, however, but having a close tie to the legal industry I did read the decision, and I think that there is no Specific rule -- but rather COMMON LAW as indicated here:
[¶11] Perhaps this entire discussion should have been shortened to the dual observation that (1) misuse of trade secrets is a recognized common law cause of action; and (2) the Wyoming legislature adopted the common law over 100 years ago. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 8-1-101 (LexisNexis 2005) provides as follows:



The common law of England as modified by judicial decisions, so far as the same is of a general nature and not inapplicable, and all declaratory or remedial acts or statutes made in aid of, or to supply the defects of the common law prior to the fourth year of James the First (excepting the second section of the sixth chapter of forty-third Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of thirteenth Elizabeth and ninth chapter of thirty-seventh Henry Eighth) and which are of a general nature and not local to England, are the rule of decision in this state when not inconsistent with the laws thereof, and are considered as of full force until repealed by legislative authority.

If you are, indeed, a student, I would encourage you to talk to your instructor and/or verify it yourself.

Answer 4

It has to do with Judicial Decision Making. Same as State v. Butler; Adkins v. Sky Blue, Inc.; Strunk v. Strunk.

Answer 5

Why not give us the web site so we can look at it??? Not everyone is well versed of every case - over billions filed in the last 10 years ... how old is it even???

Tell me the web site and I will look at it - if you send it and I remember to look back again

Peace;

Aintmyfault
..