noncompete clause in Ohio

2022Trumbull No. 2004-T-0150, 2005-Ohio-5120, ¶ 11 , citing Ellinos, Inc. v. Austintown Twp., 203 F.Supp.2d 875, 886 (N.D.Ohio 2002) and Edinburg Restaurant, Inc. v. Edinburg Twp., 203 F.Supp.2d 865, 873 (N.D.Ohio 2002). {¶ 63} In actions involving covenants not to compete, courts have stated that “an employer who seeks an injunction to enforce a noncompete clause must not only establish the reasonableness of the noncompete clause at issue but must also show that the employer is likely to suffer irreparable harm as a result of the employee’s breach of that clause.” Brentlinger Enterprises v. Curra

2022Trumbull No. 2004-T-0150, 2005-Ohio-5120, ¶ 11 , citing Ellinos, Inc. v. Austintown Twp., 203 F.Supp.2d 875, 886 (N.D.Ohio 2002) and Edinburg Restaurant, Inc. v. Edinburg Twp., 203 F.Supp.2d 865, 873 (N.D.Ohio 2002). {¶ 63} In actions involving covenants not to compete, courts have stated that “an employer who seeks an injunction to enforce a noncompete clause must not only establish the reasonableness of the noncompete clause at issue but must also show that the employer is likely to suffer irreparable harm as a result of the employee’s breach of that clause.” Brentlinger Enterprises v. Curra

2022Cos., 86 Ohio St.3d 270, 274-275 , 714 N.E.2d 898 (1999), this court held that a noncompete clause between Nationwide Insurance Companies and its independent-contractor agent was valid and 27 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO enforceable.

2022Cos., 86 Ohio St.3d 270, 274-275 , 714 N.E.2d 898 (1999), this court held that a noncompete clause between Nationwide Insurance Companies and its independent-contractor agent was valid and 27 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO enforceable.

2025Professional Investigations & Consulting Agency, Inc. v. Kingsland, 69 Ohio App.3d 753, 760 (10th Dist. 1990); Evans v. Duracote Corp., 13 Ohio App.2d 63 (11th Dist. 1968).

2022Trumbull No. 2004-T-0150, 2005-Ohio-5120, ¶ 11 , citing Ellinos, Inc. v. Austintown Twp., 203 F.Supp.2d 875, 886 (N.D.Ohio 2002) and Edinburg Restaurant, Inc. v. Edinburg Twp., 203 F.Supp.2d 865, 873 (N.D.Ohio 2002). {¶ 63} In actions involving covenants not to compete, courts have stated that “an employer who seeks an injunction to enforce a noncompete clause must not only establish the reasonableness of the noncompete clause at issue but must also show that the employer is likely to suffer irreparable harm as a result of the employee’s breach of that clause.” Brentlinger Enterprises v. Curra

2022True, the agreement defined the term “competitor” as a “provider of services similar to those provided by [Ugicom].” But the agreement nevertheless restricted the installers’ freedom to work, which evinces a measure of Ugicom’s control over the installers. {¶ 31} Ugicom again invokes Barcus, 2015-Ohio-3122, at ¶ 26 , claiming that the court of appeals in that case held that an independent-contractor agreement that included a noncompete clause was unequivocal evidence of an independent- contractor relationship.

2022Franklin No. 14AP-942, 2015-Ohio-3122 , the court of appeals determined that the truck driver involved in that case was an independent contractor, even though the contract between him and the transportation company that was alleged to have been his employer included a noncompete clause.

2018Cuyahoga No. 86605, 2006-Ohio-1596, ¶ 31 .

2018Cuyahoga No. 86605, 2006-Ohio-1596 , 2006 WL 832451 , ¶ 31.

2011Co. (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 51, 53 , 544 N.E.2d 920 ; Blair v. McDonagh, 177 Ohio App.3d 262 , 2008-Ohio-3698 , 894 N.E.2d 377, ¶48 . 8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS a contract are ambiguous, an issue of fact exists, making summary judgment inappropriate.17 {¶27} The last sentence of Section 9.3 of Guo’s employment agreement, the noncompete clause, states, “Physician will be relieved of this restriction if Physician terminates for cause under the Provisions of Section 7.6.” This sentence was not originally in the agreement.

2011Co. (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 51, 53 , 544 N.E.2d 920 ; Blair v. McDonagh, 177 Ohio App.3d 262 , 2008-Ohio-3698 , 894 N.E.2d 377, ¶48 . 8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS a contract are ambiguous, an issue of fact exists, making summary judgment inappropriate.17 {¶27} The last sentence of Section 9.3 of Guo’s employment agreement, the noncompete clause, states, “Physician will be relieved of this restriction if Physician terminates for cause under the Provisions of Section 7.6.” This sentence was not originally in the agreement.

2011Co. (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 51, 53 , 544 N.E.2d 920 ; Blair v. McDonagh, 177 Ohio App.3d 262 , 2008-Ohio-3698 , 894 N.E.2d 377, ¶48 . 8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS a contract are ambiguous, an issue of fact exists, making summary judgment inappropriate.17 {¶27} The last sentence of Section 9.3 of Guo’s employment agreement, the noncompete clause, states, “Physician will be relieved of this restriction if Physician terminates for cause under the Provisions of Section 7.6.” This sentence was not originally in the agreement.

2011Co. (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 51, 53 , 544 N.E.2d 920 ; Blair v. McDonagh, 177 Ohio App.3d 262 , 2008-Ohio-3698 , 894 N.E.2d 377, ¶48 . 8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS a contract are ambiguous, an issue of fact exists, making summary judgment inappropriate.17 {¶27} The last sentence of Section 9.3 of Guo’s employment agreement, the noncompete clause, states, “Physician will be relieved of this restriction if Physician terminates for cause under the Provisions of Section 7.6.” This sentence was not originally in the agreement.

2011Nos. 76724 and 76785, 2002-Ohio-983 . 11 Raimonde v. Van Vlerah (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 21 , 325 N.E.2d 544 , paragraph two of the syllabus; Harris, supra; Ohio Urology, Inc. v. Poll (1991), 72 Ohio App.3d 446, 452 , 594 N.E.2d 1027 . 7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Courts must strictly construe noncompete agreements in favor of professional mobility and access to medical care and facilities.12 Nevertheless, each case must be decided on its own facts.13 {¶24} The noncompete clause in this case applied for a year and stated that Guo could not provide services at a location within five mile

2011Nos. 76724 and 76785, 2002-Ohio-983 . 11 Raimonde v. Van Vlerah (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 21 , 325 N.E.2d 544 , paragraph two of the syllabus; Harris, supra; Ohio Urology, Inc. v. Poll (1991), 72 Ohio App.3d 446, 452 , 594 N.E.2d 1027 . 7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Courts must strictly construe noncompete agreements in favor of professional mobility and access to medical care and facilities.12 Nevertheless, each case must be decided on its own facts.13 {¶24} The noncompete clause in this case applied for a year and stated that Guo could not provide services at a location within five mile

2009Id. *Page 4 {¶ 4} On remand, General Medicine and Dr. Manolache filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

2003However, the court proceeded to explain, “[t]he at-will termination clause in the contract, unlike a noncompete clause, in no way prohibits a physician from treating certain patients and places no affirmative restrictions on the physician’s ability to practice where and in the manner he wants.” Id. at 551 , 723 N.E.2d 128 .

2003However, the court proceeded to explain, “[t]he at-will termination clause in the contract, unlike a noncompete clause, in no way prohibits a physician from treating certain patients and places no affirmative restrictions on the physician’s ability to practice where and in the manner he wants.” Id. at 551 , 723 N.E.2d 128 .

2002"An injunction is an extraordinary remedy in equity that is available only where there is no adequate remedy available at law." Brentlinger Enter. v. Curran (2001) , 141 Ohio App.3d 640 , 646 (citing Garono v. State (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 171 ).

2001Co., Inc. v. A-1-A Corp. [1977], 42 N.Y.2d 496, 499 , 398 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1006 , 369 N.E.2d 4, 6 ; Purchasing Assoc., Inc. v. Weitz [1963], 13 N.Y.2d 267 , 246 N.Y.S.2d 600, 605-606 , 196 N.E.2d 245, 249 ).

2001Co., Inc. v. A-1-A Corp. [1977], 42 N.Y.2d 496, 499 , 398 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1006 , 369 N.E.2d 4, 6 ; Purchasing Assoc., Inc. v. Weitz [1963], 13 N.Y.2d 267 , 246 N.Y.S.2d 600, 605-606 , 196 N.E.2d 245, 249 ).

2001Co., Inc. v. A-1-A Corp. [1977], 42 N.Y.2d 496, 499 , 398 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1006 , 369 N.E.2d 4, 6 ; Purchasing Assoc., Inc. v. Weitz [1963], 13 N.Y.2d 267 , 246 N.Y.S.2d 600, 605-606 , 196 N.E.2d 245, 249 ).

2001Co., Inc. v. A-1-A Corp. [1977], 42 N.Y.2d 496, 499 , 398 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1006 , 369 N.E.2d 4, 6 ; Purchasing Assoc., Inc. v. Weitz [1963], 13 N.Y.2d 267 , 246 N.Y.S.2d 600, 605-606 , 196 N.E.2d 245, 249 ).