TRULY NOLEN, INC.

v.

ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY

Citator

Cited By

• Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Girardeau, 301 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
  …eviously defined would have been neither unduly harsh nor oppressive under the circumstances. In this connection, see Orkin v. Capelouto, Fla., 183 So. 2d 532. Also, footnote 1 to Orkin v. Truly Nolen, Fla. App. 3rd, 117 So. 2d 419 (cert. den. Fla., 120 So. 2d 619) is appropriate here and I quote therefrom: “In the instant case, it is undisputed as shown by the testimony and exhibits that for the proper protection of a company such as Nolen or Orkin engaged in the pest control, exterminating, fumigating and…
• Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. Egly, 507 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
  …84). The sometimes nebulous designation “business information” has long been recognized as potentially subject to protection. See, e.g., Orkin Exterminating Co. of South Florida, Inc. v. Truly Nolen, Inc., 117 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 120 So. 2d 619 (Fla.1960). We conclude, however, that the circuit court’s decision to make accessible to the respondents the information gathered by CFC does not intrude into the realm of trade secrets. First, as the circuit court understood, the discovery sought…
• Fortune Pers. Agency OF FT. Lauderdale, Inc. v. SUN Tech Inc. OF S. Fla., 423 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
  …v. 1961). . See Bert Lane Co. v. International Indus., Inc., 84 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1955); Inland Rubber Corp. v. Helman, 237 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). . See Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Truly Nolen, Inc., 117 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 120 So. 2d 619 (Fla.1960). . Sun Tech Inc. v. Fortune Personnel Agency, 412 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). . The order restrains respondents’ further divulgence, not use. . It is surprising to us that none of the parties mention section 90.506, Florida Statute…

Authorities Cited

• Orkin Exterminating Co. OF S. Fla., Inc. v. Truly Nolen, Inc., 117 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)