noncompetition clause in Kansas

5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2022 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Wichita Clinic, P.A. v. Louisgreen kanctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022See, e.g., Weber, 259 Kan. at 468-69 (assessing the time and geographical restrictions in a noncompetition clause without reference to the district court's analysis); Wichita Clinic, 39 Kan.	1	1
Kumberg v. Kumberggreen kan · 1983 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991See Kumberg v. Kumberg, 232 Kan. 692, 699-700 , 659 P.2d 823 (1983) (one taking assignment of void contract acquires nothing). 1991See Kumberg v. Kumberg, 232 Kan. 692, 699-700 , 659 P.2d 823 (1983) (one taking assignment of void contract acquires nothing).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
Caring Hearts Personal Home Services, Inc. v. Hobley green kanctapp · 2006 1 sentence 2022App. 2d at 859-60 (independently determining that a three-year restriction was reasonable without deference to the district court's contrary finding); Caring Hearts Personal Home Services, Inc. v. Hobley, 35 Kan.	1	2022–2022
Idbeis v. Wichita Surgical Specialists, P.A. green kan · 2005 2 sentences 2010In other types of civil cases in which considerations of reasonableness were at issue, Kansas courts have considered all circumstances of the case, including a set of specified factors, Idbeis v. Wichita Surgical Specialists, P.A., 279 Kan. 755 , Syl. & 2, 112 P.3d 81 (2005) (determining whether a noncompetition clause was reasonable), or the purpose of the time limit at issue and the overall circumstances of the case, Newmaster v. Southeast Equipment, Inc., 231 Kan. 466, 471 , 646 P.2d 488 (1982) (determining whether an attempt to repair defective product was made within a reasonable time). 2010In other types of civil cases in which considerations of reasonableness were at issue, Kansas courts have considered all circumstances of the case, including a set of specified factors, Idbeis v. Wichita Surgical Specialists, P.A., 279 Kan. 755 , Syl. & 2, 112 P.3d 81 (2005) (determining whether a noncompetition clause was reasonable), or the purpose of the time limit at issue and the overall circumstances of the case, Newmaster v. Southeast Equipment, Inc., 231 Kan. 466, 471 , 646 P.2d 488 (1982) (determining whether an attempt to repair defective product was made within a reasonable time).	1	2010–2010
Newmaster v. Southeast Equipment, Inc. green kan · 1982 2 sentences 2010In other types of civil cases in which considerations of reasonableness were at issue, Kansas courts have considered all circumstances of the case, including a set of specified factors, Idbeis v. Wichita Surgical Specialists, P.A., 279 Kan. 755 , Syl. & 2, 112 P.3d 81 (2005) (determining whether a noncompetition clause was reasonable), or the purpose of the time limit at issue and the overall circumstances of the case, Newmaster v. Southeast Equipment, Inc., 231 Kan. 466, 471 , 646 P.2d 488 (1982) (determining whether an attempt to repair defective product was made within a reasonable time). 2010In other types of civil cases in which considerations of reasonableness were at issue, Kansas courts have considered all circumstances of the case, including a set of specified factors, Idbeis v. Wichita Surgical Specialists, P.A., 279 Kan. 755 , Syl. & 2, 112 P.3d 81 (2005) (determining whether a noncompetition clause was reasonable), or the purpose of the time limit at issue and the overall circumstances of the case, Newmaster v. Southeast Equipment, Inc., 231 Kan. 466, 471 , 646 P.2d 488 (1982) (determining whether an attempt to repair defective product was made within a reasonable time).	1	2010–2010
Weber v. Tillman green kan · 1996 1 sentence 2005The determination of reasonableness is made on the particular facts and circumstances of each case.” 259 Kan. at 464 .	1	2005–2005
Berry v. Shell Petroleum Co. neutral kan · 1935 2 sentences 1977(H & R Block, Inc. v. Lovelace, 208 Kan. 538 , 493 P.2d 205 ; Foltz v. Struxness, 168 Kan. 714 , 215 P.2d 133 ; and John Lucas & Co. v. Evans, 141 Kan. 57 , 40 P.2d 359 .) With respect to time and space provisions in such covenants we adopted what was denominated the doctrine of reasonableness in Foltz and explained that the real test is never whether there is any restraint, but always whether the restraint is reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the particular case. 1977It has become well-established that a noncompetition clause is valid if it is ancillary to any lawful contract, but it is subject to the test of reasonableness of the covenant and whether it is inimical to the public welfare. ( H & R Block, Inc. v. Lovelace, 208 Kan. 538 , 493 P.2d 205 ; Foltz v. Struxness, 168 Kan. 714 , 215 P.2d 133 ; and John Lucas & Co. v. Evans, 141 Kan. 57 , 40 P.2d 359 .) With respect to time and space provisions in such covenants we adopted what was denominated the doctrine of reasonableness in Foltz and explained that the real test is never whether there is any restra	1	1977–1977
John Lucas & Co. v. Evans neutral kan · 1935 2 sentences 1977(H & R Block, Inc. v. Lovelace, 208 Kan. 538 , 493 P.2d 205 ; Foltz v. Struxness, 168 Kan. 714 , 215 P.2d 133 ; and John Lucas & Co. v. Evans, 141 Kan. 57 , 40 P.2d 359 .) With respect to time and space provisions in such covenants we adopted what was denominated the doctrine of reasonableness in Foltz and explained that the real test is never whether there is any restraint, but always whether the restraint is reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the particular case. 1977It has become well-established that a noncompetition clause is valid if it is ancillary to any lawful contract, but it is subject to the test of reasonableness of the covenant and whether it is inimical to the public welfare. ( H & R Block, Inc. v. Lovelace, 208 Kan. 538 , 493 P.2d 205 ; Foltz v. Struxness, 168 Kan. 714 , 215 P.2d 133 ; and John Lucas & Co. v. Evans, 141 Kan. 57 , 40 P.2d 359 .) With respect to time and space provisions in such covenants we adopted what was denominated the doctrine of reasonableness in Foltz and explained that the real test is never whether there is any restra	1	1977–1977
H & R BLOCK, INC. v. Lovelace green kan · 1972 2 sentences 1977It has become well-established that a noncompetition clause is valid if it is ancillary to any lawful contract, but it is subject to the test of reasonableness of the covenant and whether it is inimical to the public welfare. ( H & R Block, Inc. v. Lovelace, 208 Kan. 538 , 493 P.2d 205 ; Foltz v. Struxness, 168 Kan. 714 , 215 P.2d 133 ; and John Lucas & Co. v. Evans, 141 Kan. 57 , 40 P.2d 359 .) With respect to time and space provisions in such covenants we adopted what was denominated the doctrine of reasonableness in Foltz and explained that the real test is never whether there is any restra 1977It has become well-established that a noncompetition clause is valid if it is ancillary to any lawful contract, but it is subject to the test of reasonableness of the covenant and whether it is inimical to the public welfare. ( H & R Block, Inc. v. Lovelace, 208 Kan. 538 , 493 P.2d 205 ; Foltz v. Struxness, 168 Kan. 714 , 215 P.2d 133 ; and John Lucas & Co. v. Evans, 141 Kan. 57 , 40 P.2d 359 .) With respect to time and space provisions in such covenants we adopted what was denominated the doctrine of reasonableness in Foltz and explained that the real test is never whether there is any restra	1	1977–1977
Foltz v. Struxness green kan · 1950 2 sentences 1977It has become well-established that a noncompetition clause is valid if it is ancillary to any lawful contract, but it is subject to the test of reasonableness of the covenant and whether it is inimical to the public welfare. ( H & R Block, Inc. v. Lovelace, 208 Kan. 538 , 493 P.2d 205 ; Foltz v. Struxness, 168 Kan. 714 , 215 P.2d 133 ; and John Lucas & Co. v. Evans, 141 Kan. 57 , 40 P.2d 359 .) With respect to time and space provisions in such covenants we adopted what was denominated the doctrine of reasonableness in Foltz and explained that the real test is never whether there is any restra 1977It has become well-established that a noncompetition clause is valid if it is ancillary to any lawful contract, but it is subject to the test of reasonableness of the covenant and whether it is inimical to the public welfare. ( H & R Block, Inc. v. Lovelace, 208 Kan. 538 , 493 P.2d 205 ; Foltz v. Struxness, 168 Kan. 714 , 215 P.2d 133 ; and John Lucas & Co. v. Evans, 141 Kan. 57 , 40 P.2d 359 .) With respect to time and space provisions in such covenants we adopted what was denominated the doctrine of reasonableness in Foltz and explained that the real test is never whether there is any restra	1	1977–1977

Where else courts name it

NY 15 (1981–2020) CA 13 (1998–2025) OH 12 (1985–2008) MI 11 (1978–2026) LA 10 (1974–2017) IL 9 (1980–2013) PA 6 (1989–2025) TX 6 (1978–2023) IN 5 (1985–2006) MA 5 (1982–1999) GA 5 (1997–2013) KS 5 (1977–2022) CT 4 (1999–2006) FL 4 (1988–2021) CO 4 (1966–2011) AL 4 (1988–2005) SC 3 (1985–1998) NJ 3 (1977–2007) AZ 3 (2010–2014) MD 2 (1989–1991) VA 2 (2005–2010) IA 2 (1989–2018) OR 2 (1973–1987) ID 2 (1985–2008)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check