Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Technology Integration Group, et al. v. Access Microsystems and Paul Rajewski
Date: 12-22-2006
Case Number: Unknown
Judge: Unknown
Court: District Court, Salt Lake County, Utah
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Clark Waddoups of Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless, P.C., Salt Lake City, Utah
Defendant's Attorney: Unknown
Technology Integration Group, Cliff Butler, Dallas Shaw, and Lyle Voorheis sued Access Microsystems and Paul Rajewski on defamation and tortious business interference theories. Plaintiffs left Access Mircrosystems to set up TIG. The claimed that Rajewski engaged in what the plaintiffs claimed were several acts of defamation against them, which included telling the customer that Voorheis had stolen computer equipment from the customer's office and that Butler and Shaw had stolen equipment from Access Microsystems. Rajewski also wrongfully told customers that TIG could not work on their equipment because Butler, Shaw, and Voorheis were legally restrained from doing so because of non-compete agreements. Plaintiffs claimed that they were damaged by defendants' wrongful conduct.
The defenses asserted by defendants are not available.
About This Case
What was the outcome of Technology Integration Group, et al. v. Access Microsyste...?
The outcome was: Plaintiffs' verdict for $2.38 million including $2,145,176.30 for defamation damages and $235,971.2 for improper interference with a potential business relationship.
Which court heard Technology Integration Group, et al. v. Access Microsyste...?
This case was heard in District Court, Salt Lake County, Utah, UT. The presiding judge was Unknown.
Who were the attorneys in Technology Integration Group, et al. v. Access Microsyste...?
Plaintiff's attorney: Clark Waddoups of Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless, P.C., Salt Lake City, Utah. Defendant's attorney: Unknown.
When was Technology Integration Group, et al. v. Access Microsyste... decided?
This case was decided on December 22, 2006.