Kansas Supreme Court - 99536 – Wolfe Electric, Inc. v. Duckworth

More important, because our function under Dougan, 270 Kan. 468, requires us to
consider the quantity and quality of evidence, and because the evidence on remand may be
different, this issue currently is inappropriate for appellate resolution.
d. Issue of trial court error in denying Duckworth's motion for judgment as matter
of law on one component of breach of contract claim
In a related argument, Duckworth next claims the trial court erred in denying his
motion for judgment as a matter of law on one component of the breach of contract claim.
More particularly, he contends Wolfe Electric failed to prove that it had been damaged by
loss of any sales to actual customers—active or inactive—as a result of Global's purported
solicitation. Wolfe Electric makes no specific response.
Our standard of review is as announced in National Bank of Andover, 290 Kan. at
267. However, because this exercise also requires us to consider the amounts of evidence,
and because the evidence on remand may be different, this issue currently is inappropriate
for appellate resolution.
Issue 5: Whether the district court erred in enjoining defendants posttrial from
involvement in conveyor pizza ovens is moot.
Defendants next argue the trial court erred posttrial in enjoining them from being
involved, directly or indirectly, in the design, manufacture, marketing, and sale of
conveyor pizza ovens for 4 years—2 1/2 years from the order dated May 17, 2007—under
K.S.A. 60-3321. They contend Wolfe Electric already had an adequate remedy at law in
the form of a $600,000 verdict. Defendants also contend KUTSA required an injunction to
terminate when the trade secret ceased to exist. They cite K.S.A. 60-3321(a) and point to
44