Search for: "State v. Coven" Results 301 - 320 of 3,362
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Aug 2013, 12:34 am by John Steele
Justia: Jared Barton sued Korrine Linvog, her parents Thomas and Madonna Linvog, and the State. [read post]
  First, the Bill adopts the legitimate business interest requirement set forth in Reliable Fire Equipment Co. v. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 8:11 am
The latest Pennsylvania Bar Association Civil Litigation Update is out and it includes my case summary of Missett v. [read post]
14 Apr 2009, 2:47 am
After all, the covenant only takes effect upon termination, and the sina qua non of a covenant is to protect the employer after the employee is gone. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 3:07 pm
" The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the breach of contract claim because the complaint failed to allege the defendant promised the plaintiff it would restrict competing gift stores to four stores.Analyzing the claim for breach of express and implied covenants, the Court of Appeals stated "an implied covenant to refrain from destructive competition may be inferred from a percentage lease, based on the duty of good faith and fair dealing, where the… [read post]
12 Aug 2009, 6:47 am by EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
Several of those issues are addressed in a 48 page opinion issued recently by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Proudfoot Consulting Co. v. [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 7:44 am by Zachary C. Jackson
It’s important to remember, though, that in many states, restrictive covenants are an exception to that rule. [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 5:56 am by Zachary C. Jackson
Earlier this week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its first opinion reviewing a decision in which the District Court applied, or refused to apply, Fifield:  Instant Technology LLC v. [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 5:56 am by Zachary C. Jackson
Earlier this week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its first opinion reviewing a decision in which the District Court applied, or refused to apply, Fifield:  Instant Technology LLC v. [read post]