Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Citation
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Parent Document
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2012-03-27
Other Sections in This Document (51)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
- Section 31-51q
Full Text
606 charsIn March, 2000, Schmeizl directed the plaintiff to telephone competitors to obtain certain information while she pretended to be someone else. The plaintiff informed Schmeizl of her assessment that the practice was illegal. On March 27, 2000, Schmeizl sent an e-mail to Kris Keegan, a lawyer in Packard’s legal department, inquiring whether it was legal to telephone competitors’ customer support lines or their sales representatives while pretending to be “Dr. Smith from State University” in order to obtain “pricing information,” “literature” and “quotations.” Keegan advised against such practice. *451