Skip to main content
Skip to main content

Adamo v. Scheller (In Re Scheller)

NYSBJuly 25, 2001No. 19-10054Cited 43 times

Case Details

Judge(s)
Hardin
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
trial verdict

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court found the judgment debts held by Peter Adamo and Race Place against the Schellers non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and (6), determining that Robert Scheller engaged in fraud and embezzlement in connection with the slot car business joint venture, and that Anita Scheller was liable as an accomplice.

What This Ruling Means

I apologize, but I cannot provide a meaningful summary of this case based on the information provided. The excerpt you've shared appears to be incomplete - it only shows basic case filing information (case name, court, and date from 2001) but doesn't include any details about: - What the actual employment dispute was about - What legal issues were involved - What the court decided - The reasoning behind the decision Without the actual court ruling text or case details, I cannot explain what happened in the dispute, what the court decided, or why it would matter for workers. To write an accurate and helpful summary for workers, I would need access to the full court decision or at least a detailed description of the facts, legal claims, and the court's ruling in this case. If you have additional information about this case or the full court decision, please share it and I'll be happy to provide a clear, plain-English summary for workers.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Nicholas La Grasta, Domenico La Grasta, and Mauro La Grasta, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. First Union Securities, Inc.
1st CircuitJan 2004
Remanded
Dalton
NCJul 2001

<bold>1. Employer and Employee — breach of fiduciary duty — forming rival company</bold> <block_quote> The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Camp on a claim for breach of fiduciary duty arising from defendant leaving plaintiff's employment and starting a rival company, because plaintiff employer failed to establish facts supporting a breach of fiduciary duty when no evidence suggests that defendant's position in the workplace resulted in domination and influence over plaintiff.</block_quote> <bold>2. Employer and Employee — breach of loyalty — forming rival company</bold> <block_quote> The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Camp on a claim for breach of duty of loyalty arising from defendant leaving plaintiff's employment and starting a rival company, because plaintiff failed to establish that any independent tort for breach of duty of loyalty exists under our state law.</block_quote> <bold>3. Wrongful Interference — interference with prospective advantage —</bold> <bold>employees founding rival business</bold> <block_quote> The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Camp and MCC on a claim for tortious interference with prospective advantage arising from defendant Camp leaving<page_number>Page 648</page_number> plaintiff's employment and starting a rival business publishing employment newsletters, because: (1) there is no evidence that defendant Camp induced KFI into entering a contract; and (2) plaintiff employer offers no evidence showing that but for defendant Camp's alleged interference, a contract with KFI would have ensued.</block_quote> <bold>4. Unfair Trade Practices — employee founding rival business — no fiduciary</bold> <bold>relationship — no egregious or aggravating conduct</bold> <block_quote> The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Camp and MCC on a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices und

Defendant Win
United States Ex Rel. Clausen v. Laboratory Corp. of America, Inc.
11th CircuitMay 2002
Defendant Win
Neilson
C.D. Cal.Oct 2003
Dismissed
United States Ex Rel. Ladas v. Exelis, Inc.
2nd CircuitMay 2016
Mixed Result

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.