Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Intel Corp. v. Hamidi Case Brief

California Supreme Court2003Docket #2380749
71 P.3d 296 1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 32 30 Cal. 4th 1342 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5711 20 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 65 2003 Daily Journal DAR 7181 2003 Cal. LEXIS 4205 Torts Property Cyberlaw

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: A company sued a former employee for trespass to chattels for sending mass emails to current employees. The court ruled that because the emails did not damage or impair the company’s computer system, no trespass occurred, as employee distraction from the message content is not an injury to the chattel itself.

Legal Significance: This case established that for electronic communications to be an actionable trespass to chattels in California, the plaintiff must show actual damage to the computer system or impairment of its function, not merely economic loss resulting from the message’s content.

Intel Corp. v. Hamidi Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Defendant Kourosh Hamidi, a former Intel employee, sent six mass emails over a 21-month period to as many as 35,000 current Intel employees using the company’s email system. The emails were critical of Intel’s employment practices. Intel demanded that Hamidi stop, but he continued, successfully circumventing the company’s technical efforts to block the messages. The parties did not dispute that the emails caused no physical damage to Intel’s computers, nor did they slow down or otherwise impair the functionality of the email system. The system continued to operate as intended. Intel’s claimed injury was not to the chattel itself, but consisted of the consequential economic loss resulting from employees’ distraction and the time company resources were diverted to address and attempt to block the messages. Intel sought an injunction to stop the emails, alleging the conduct constituted a trespass to chattels.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does an electronic communication that causes no physical or functional damage to a computer system, but does cause the system’s owner to incur economic costs due to the communication’s content, constitute an actionable trespass to chattels?

No. The court held that Hamidi’s emails did not constitute a trespass Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volup

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does an electronic communication that causes no physical or functional damage to a computer system, but does cause the system’s owner to incur economic costs due to the communication’s content, constitute an actionable trespass to chattels?

Conclusion

This decision significantly limited the application of trespass to chattels in the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labo

Legal Rule

Under California law, the tort of trespass to chattels requires evidence of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia

Legal Analysis

The California Supreme Court reasoned that the tort of trespass to chattels, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqu

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • The tort of trespass to chattels requires actual harm to the
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

A lawyer is a person who writes a 10,000-word document and calls it a 'brief'.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+