WHITESELL INTERNATIONAL CORP V WILLIAM WHITAKER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
WHITESELL INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION,
UNPUBLISHED
January 18, 2011
Plaintiff-CounterdefendantAppellant,
v
No. 287569
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 05-518716-CZ
WILLIAM WHITAKER,
Defendant-CounterplaintiffAppellee,
and
MRC INDUSTRIAL GROUP, INC.,
Defendant,
and
PIERCETEK, INC.,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
ON RECONSIDERATION
Before: MURPHY, C.J., and JANSEN and ZAHRA, JJ.
MURPHY, C.J. (dissenting in part and concurring in part).
On the basis of the reasoning and analysis set forth in my original dissenting opinion,
which I adopt and incorporate by reference for purposes of this opinion on reconsideration, I
continue to find that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are inapplicable and that
the trial court erred in summarily dismissing the complaint filed by Whitesell International
Corporation (WIC). For purposes of res judicata, it is simply impossible to conclude that WIC
could have brought a claim or cause of action in the two earlier suits pertaining to defendantcounterplaintiff William Whitaker’s use and disclosure of the Stamptech Process relative to his
-1-
association with defendants MRC Industrial Group, Inc., and Piercetek, Inc., given that said use
and disclosure had not yet transpired when those previous suits were litigated and closed.
Further, for purposes of collateral estoppel, the issues concerning the enforceability of the
confidentiality agreement and assignment and whether the Stamptech Process constituted a trade
secret that had been assigned were not tried, conceded, or determined; therefore, collateral
estoppel cannot be invoked to dismiss WIC’s action against Whitaker. Accordingly, I continue
to respectfully dissent as to the dismissal of WIC’s lawsuit.
In my original dissenting opinion, and in regard to Whitaker’s counterclaim, I concluded
that the trial court prejudicially erred in directing a verdict on the issue of whether the Stamptech
Process constituted a “trade secret.” My colleagues, on reconsideration, have now adopted this
view, and I concur with their conclusion and analysis and would add, as further support, the
reasoning set forth in my earlier opinion, which I adopt and incorporate here by reference.
I respectfully dissent in part and concur in part.
/s/ William B. Murphy
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
