Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Michaels v. Amway Corp.green2 sentences2023Plaintiff cites Michaels v Amway Corp, 206 Mich App 644, 650 ; 522 NW2d 703 (1994) (“ ‘[O]ne who first breaches a contract cannot maintain an action against the other contracting party for his subsequent breach . . .’ ”) (citation omitted). 2023Plaintiff cites Michaels v Amway Corp, 206 Mich App 644, 650 ; 522 NW2d 703 (1994) (“ ‘[O]ne who first breaches a contract cannot maintain an action against the other contracting party for his subsequent breach . . .’ ”) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
St Clair Medical, PC v. Borgielgreen2 sentences2007To be reasonable in relation to an employer’s competitive business interest, a restrictive covenant must protect against the employee’s gaining some unfair advantage in competition with the employer, but not prohibit the employee from using general knowledge or skill. [Si Clair Medical, PC, supra at 266 (citation omitted).] The noncompetition clause in this case provided: Employee will not for a period of one (1) year after termination of employment with the Company, regardless of the reason for termination of employment, participate either personally or financially in any enterprise in compet 2007St Clair Medical, PC, supra at 267-269. | 1 | 1 |
Booth Newspapers, Inc v. University of Michigan Board of Regentsgreen2 sentences2007Booth Newspapers, Inc v Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents, 444 Mich 211, 234 ; 507 NW2d 422 (1993) (“Issues raised for the first time on appeal are not ordinarily subject to review.”); Smith v Foerster-Bolser Constr, Inc, 269 Mich App 424, 427 ; 711 NW2d 421 (2006). (b) Alternatively, the plain language of the noncompetition clause vitiates the first-breach doctrine: “Employee will not for a period of one (1) year after termination of employment with the Company, regardless of the reason for termination of employment, participate ... in any enterprise in competition with the Company.” (Emphasis a 2007Booth Newspapers, Inc v Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents, 444 Mich 211, 234 ; 507 NW2d 422 (1993) (“Issues raised for the first time on appeal are not ordinarily subject to review.”); Smith v Foerster-Bolser Constr, Inc, 269 Mich App 424, 427 ; 711 NW2d 421 (2006). (b) Alternatively, the plain language of the noncompetition clause vitiates the first-breach doctrine: “Employee will not for a period of one (1) year after termination of employment with the Company, regardless of the reason for termination of employment, participate ... in any enterprise in competition with the Company.” (Emphasis a | 1 | 1 |
Thermatool Corp. v. Borzymgreen2 sentences2005MCL 445.774a; see also Thermatool Corp v Borzym, 227 Mich App 366, 372 ; 575 NW2d 334 (1998). 2005MCL 445.774a; see also Thermatool Corp v Borzym, 227 Mich App 366, 372 ; 575 NW2d 334 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Health Call of Detroit v. Atrium Home & Health Care Services, Incgreen2 sentences2005Therefore, were we not constrained by the holding in Environair, we would find that plaintiff is not limited merely to the recovery of nominal damages for tortious interference with its independent [contractor] agreements with the defendant nurses or for breach by the defendant nurses of the noncompetition clause of the independent [contractor] agreements. [ Health Call, supra at 85-86, 695 N.W.2d 337 .] Indeed, this case presents a unique factual situation in which the home nursing services provided to Williams and Harris by defendant nurses continued to be provided by those same nurses despi 2005Therefore, were we not constrained by the holding in Environair, we would find that plaintiff is not limited merely to the recovery of nominal damages for tortious interference with its independent [contractor] agreements with the defendant nurses or for breach by the defendant nurses of the noncompetition clause of the independent [contractor] agreements. [Health Call, supra at 85-86 .] Indeed, this case presents a unique factual situation in which the home nursing services provided to Williams and Harris by defendant nurses continued to be provided by those same nurses despite the change in | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coates v. Bastian Brothers, Inc
green
2 sentences2024“A court must assess the reasonableness of the noncompetition clause if a party has challenged its enforceability.” Coates, 276 Mich App at 507-508 . 2023“A court must assess the reasonableness of the noncompetition clause if a party has challenged its enforceability.” Coates, 276 Mich App at 507-508 . | 5 | 2015–2026 |
Woodward v. Cadillac Overall Supply Co.
green
2 sentences2007See MCL 445.774a(l); Woodward v Cadillac Overall Supply Co, 396 Mich 379, 389-391 ; 240 NW2d 710 (1976). 2007See MCL 445.774a(l); Woodward v Cadillac Overall Supply Co, 396 Mich 379, 389-391 ; 240 NW2d 710 (1976). | 2 | 1978–2007 |
St. Clair Medical, PC v. Borgiel
green
1 sentence2007Clair Medical, P.C., supra at 266, 715 N.W.2d 914 (citation omitted).] The noncompetition clause in this case provided: Employee will not for a period of one (1) year after termination of employment with the Company, regardless of the reason for termination of employment, participate either personally or financially in any enterprise in competition with the Company. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Mayor of Lansing v. Public Service Commission
green
2 sentences2007Klapp, supra at 467 ; Lansing Mayor, supra at 166 . 2007Klapp, supra at 467 , 663 N.W.2d 447 ; Lansing Mayor, supra at 166 , 680 N.W.2d 840 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Klapp v. United Insurance Group Agency, Inc
green
2 sentences2007Klapp, supra at 467 ; Lansing Mayor, supra at 166 . 2007Klapp, supra at 467 , 663 N.W.2d 447 ; Lansing Mayor, supra at 166 , 680 N.W.2d 840 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Smith v. Foerster-Bolser Construction, Inc
green
2 sentences2007Booth Newspapers, Inc v Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents, 444 Mich 211, 234 ; 507 NW2d 422 (1993) (“Issues raised for the first time on appeal are not ordinarily subject to review.”); Smith v Foerster-Bolser Constr, Inc, 269 Mich App 424, 427 ; 711 NW2d 421 (2006). (b) Alternatively, the plain language of the noncompetition clause vitiates the first-breach doctrine: “Employee will not for a period of one (1) year after termination of employment with the Company, regardless of the reason for termination of employment, participate ... in any enterprise in competition with the Company.” (Emphasis a 2007Booth Newspapers, Inc v Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents, 444 Mich 211, 234 ; 507 NW2d 422 (1993) (“Issues raised for the first time on appeal are not ordinarily subject to review.”); Smith v Foerster-Bolser Constr, Inc, 269 Mich App 424, 427 ; 711 NW2d 421 (2006). (b) Alternatively, the plain language of the noncompetition clause vitiates the first-breach doctrine: “Employee will not for a period of one (1) year after termination of employment with the Company, regardless of the reason for termination of employment, participate ... in any enterprise in competition with the Company.” (Emphasis a | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Rehmann, Robson & Co. v. McMahan
green
2 sentences2007Conversely, defendants assert that this is an antipiracy clause, likening the instant case to Follmer, Rudzewicz & Co, PC v Kosco, 420 Mich 394 ; 362 NW2d 676 (1984), and Rehmann, Robson & Co v McMahan, 187 Mich App 36 ; 466 NW2d 325 (1991), where similar clauses were upheld as reasonable. 2007Conversely, defendants assert that this is an antipiracy clause, likening the instant case to Follmer, Rudzewicz & Co, PC v Kosco, 420 Mich 394 ; 362 NW2d 676 (1984), and Rehmann, Robson & Co v McMahan, 187 Mich App 36 ; 466 NW2d 325 (1991), where similar clauses were upheld as reasonable. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Follmer, Rudzewicz & Co. v. Kosco
green
2 sentences2007Conversely, defendants assert that this is an antipiracy clause, likening the instant case to Follmer, Rudzewicz & Co, PC v Kosco, 420 Mich 394 ; 362 NW2d 676 (1984), and Rehmann, Robson & Co v McMahan, 187 Mich App 36 ; 466 NW2d 325 (1991), where similar clauses were upheld as reasonable. 2007Conversely, defendants assert that this is an antipiracy clause, likening the instant case to Follmer, Rudzewicz & Co, PC v Kosco, 420 Mich 394 ; 362 NW2d 676 (1984), and Rehmann, Robson & Co v McMahan, 187 Mich App 36 ; 466 NW2d 325 (1991), where similar clauses were upheld as reasonable. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Patillo v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
green
2 sentences2005In Patillo v Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 199 Mich App 450, 457 ; 502 NW2d 696 (1992), this Court held that a plaintiff may properly “maintain an action for tortious interference with an at-will employment contract.” Similarly, an at-will contract may properly contain a noncompetition clause. 2005In Patillo v Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 199 Mich App 450, 457 ; 502 NW2d 696 (1992), this Court held that a plaintiff may properly “maintain an action for tortious interference with an at-will employment contract.” Similarly, an at-will contract may properly contain a noncompetition clause. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Compton v. Joseph Lepak, Dds, Pc
green
1 sentence2002Id. at *493 362-363. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Couch v. Administrative Committee of Difco Laboratories Inc.
green
2 sentences1978Couch has not contended that this noncompetition clause should be denied enforcement because it constitutes an unreasonable or unconscionable restraint.” 6 Couch, supra, at 49-50 . 1978Couch has not contended that this noncompetition clause should be denied enforcement because it constitutes an unreasonable or unconscionable restraint.” 44 Mich App at 49-50 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.