11 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri 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 |
|---|---|---|
Superior Gearbox Co. v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2012See Osage Glass, Inc. v. Donovan, 693 S.W.2d 71, 74 (Mo. banc 1985) (enforcing a non-compete clause but refusing to enforce it to the extent it was unreasonable); Orchard Container Corp. v. Orchard, 601 S.W.2d 299, 304 (Mo.App.1980); see also Superior Gearbox Co., 869 S.W.2d at 249 . 6 The provisions of the customer non-solicitation clauses that prohibit Mr. Kennebrew and Mr. Morgan from soliciting any existing Whelan customer or any prospective customer from the last 12 months, throughout the nation, are unreasonably broad under the circumstances. 2012See Osage Glass, Inc. v. Donovan, 693 S.W.2d 71, 74 (Mo. banc 1985) (enforcing a non-compete clause but refusing to enforce it to the extent it was unreasonable); Orchard Container Corp. v. Orchard, 601 S.W.2d 299, 304 (Mo.App.1980); see also Superior Gearbox Co., 869 S.W.2d at 249 . 6 The provisions of the customer non-solicitation clauses that prohibit Mr. Kennebrew and Mr. Morgan from soliciting any existing Whelan customer or any prospective customer from the last 12 months, throughout the nation, are unreasonably broad under the circumstances. | 1 | 2 |
Binder v. Thorne-Bindergreen1 sentence2021See Binder v. Thorne-Binder, 186 S.W.3d 864, 867 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (noting Rule 61.01 does not require court to make written findings of prejudice). | 1 | 1 |
Willman v. Behelergreen1 sentence2021See Willman v. Beheler, 499 S.W.2d 770, 778 (Mo. 1973), abrogated on other grounds by State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Hawk Isolutions Group, Inc. v. Morrisgreen1 sentence2021Point denied. 7 The general rule is that an amended pleading “abandons any prior pleadings not referred to or incorporated into the new pleading.” Hawk Isolutions Group, Inc. v. Morris, 288 S.W.3d 758, 762 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Simpkins v. Ryder Freight System, Inc.green1 sentence2021See Simpkins v. Ryder Freight Sys., Inc., 855 S.W.2d 416, 20-21 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Orchard Container Corp. v. Orchardgreen2 sentences2012See Osage Glass, Inc. v. Donovan, 693 S.W.2d 71, 74 (Mo. banc 1985) (enforcing a non-compete clause but refusing to enforce it to the extent it was unreasonable); Orchard Container Corp. v. Orchard, 601 S.W.2d 299, 304 (Mo.App.1980); see also Superior Gearbox Co., 869 S.W.2d at 249 . 6 The provisions of the customer non-solicitation clauses that prohibit Mr. Kennebrew and Mr. Morgan from soliciting any existing Whelan customer or any prospective customer from the last 12 months, throughout the nation, are unreasonably broad under the circumstances. 2012See Osage Glass, Inc. v. Donovan, 693 S.W.2d 71, 74 (Mo. banc 1985) (enforcing a non-compete clause but refusing to enforce it to the extent it was unreasonable); Orchard Container Corp. v. Orchard, 601 S.W.2d 299, 304 (Mo.App.1980); see also Superior Gearbox Co., 869 S.W.2d at 249 . 6 The provisions of the customer non-solicitation clauses that prohibit Mr. Kennebrew and Mr. Morgan from soliciting any existing Whelan customer or any prospective customer from the last 12 months, throughout the nation, are unreasonably broad under the circumstances. | 1 | 1 |
Osage Glass, Inc. v. Donovangreen2 sentences2012See Osage Glass, Inc. v. Donovan, 693 S.W.2d 71, 74 (Mo. banc 1985) (enforcing a non-compete clause but refusing to enforce it to the extent it was unreasonable); Orchard Container Corp. v. Orchard, 601 S.W.2d 299, 304 (Mo.App.1980); see also Superior Gearbox Co., 869 S.W.2d at 249 . 6 The provisions of the customer non-solicitation clauses that prohibit Mr. Kennebrew and Mr. Morgan from soliciting any existing Whelan customer or any prospective customer from the last 12 months, throughout the nation, are unreasonably broad under the circumstances. 2012See Osage Glass, Inc. v. Donovan, 693 S.W.2d 71, 74 (Mo. banc 1985) (enforcing a non-compete clause but refusing to enforce it to the extent it was unreasonable); Orchard Container Corp. v. Orchard, 601 S.W.2d 299, 304 (Mo.App.1980); see also Superior Gearbox Co., 869 S.W.2d at 249 . 6 The provisions of the customer non-solicitation clauses that prohibit Mr. Kennebrew and Mr. Morgan from soliciting any existing Whelan customer or any prospective customer from the last 12 months, throughout the nation, are unreasonably broad under the circumstances. | 1 | 1 |
National Rejectors, Inc. v. Triemangreen1 sentence2009A “trade secret” can be “ ‘any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.’ ” Kessler-Heasley, 90 S.W.3d at 188 (quoting National Rejectors, Inc. v. Trieman, 409 S.W.2d 1, 18-19 (Mo. banc 1966)). 2 Some factors to be considered in determining whether certain information is a trade secret are: “(1) the extent to which the information is known outside of his business; (2) the extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in his business; | 1 | 1 |
Cohn v. Jefferson Savings & Loan Associationgreen1 sentence2003See Cohn v. Jefferson Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 349 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Mo.1961); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 393 (1958) (“Unless otherwise agreed, an agent is subject to a duty not to compete with the principal concerning the subject matter of his agency.”). | 1 | 1 |
Empire Gas Corp. v. Grahamgreen1 sentence2002See id. | 1 | 1 |
Washington County Memorial Hospital v. Sidebottomgreen1 sentence2002See Sidebottom, 7 S.W.3d at 546 . | 1 | 1 |
Starkings Court Reporting Services, Inc. v. Collinsgreen2 sentences1997Id, In Starkings Court Reporting Serv. v. Collins, 67 N.C.App. 540 , 313 S.E.2d 614, 616 (1984), the court held that covenants not to compete are applicable to the independent contractor relationship. 1997Id, In Starkings Court Reporting Serv. v. Collins, 67 N.C.App. 540 , 313 S.E.2d 614, 616 (1984), the court held that covenants not to compete are applicable to the independent contractor relationship. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mid-States Paint & Chemical Co. v. Herr
green
1 sentence2021Co. v. Herr, 746 S.W.2d 613 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988) (finding radius of 125 miles reasonable where majority of industrial coatings company’s customers were within such radius, trial court had noted even 350-mile radius would have been reasonable). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Furniture Manufacturing Corp. v. Joseph
green
1 sentence2021Corp. v. Joseph, 900 S.W.2d 642 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (plaintiff had sought temporary restraining order upon learning of former employee’s competition; appellate court remanded for consideration of whether injunctive relief was appropriate, noting extension of term from date of decree “would not be inequitable” if trial court determined relief is warranted). 22 We also note the non-compete clause contains a severance clause, stating in part, “It is the intention of the parties to restrict [Huff]’s activities only to the extent necessary for the protection of [Carmed 45’s members’] legitimate bu | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Grand Bissell Towers, Inc. v. Joan Gagnon Enterprises, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021To the extent that any [provision of the non-compete clause] shall be determined to be invalid or unenforceable . . ., [it] shall be automatically amended [to] grant [Carmed 45’s members] the maximum protection and restrictions on [Huff]’s activities permitted by applicable law in such circumstances.” 33 occur.” Grand Bissell, 657 S.W.2d at 379 n.3. 2021To the extent that any [provision of the non-compete clause] shall be determined to be invalid or unenforceable . . ., [it] shall be automatically amended [to] grant [Carmed 45’s members] the maximum protection and restrictions on [Huff]’s activities permitted by applicable law in such circumstances.” 33 occur.” Grand Bissell, 657 S.W.2d at 379 n.3. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Whelan Security Co. v. Kennebrew
green
2 sentences2021Whelan, 379 S.W.3d at 846 -47 (citing cases). 2021Whelan, 379 S.W.3d at 846 -47 (citing cases; noting “[c]onsiderable precedent in Missouri supports the reasonableness of 19 Huff bases much of his argument on another provision in the non-compete clause, which contained a prohibition on PDR work “within a 50 [-] mile radius of the geographic area in which any affiliate of the Partnership or of the Class A Partners provided such services during the time that [Huff] held his Percentage Interest.” However, the trial court did not rely on this provision, but found Huff had violated the above- quoted clause describing a 50-mile radius from Carmed 4 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Champion Sports Center, Inc. v. Peters
green
1 sentence2013Id. at 369 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Kessler-Heasley Artificial Limb Co. v. Kenney
green
1 sentence2009A “trade secret” can be “ ‘any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.’ ” Kessler-Heasley, 90 S.W.3d at 188 (quoting National Rejectors, Inc. v. Trieman, 409 S.W.2d 1, 18-19 (Mo. banc 1966)). 2 Some factors to be considered in determining whether certain information is a trade secret are: “(1) the extent to which the information is known outside of his business; (2) the extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in his business; | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Continental Research Corp. v. Scholz
green
1 sentence2009A “trade secret” can be “ ‘any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.’ ” Kessler-Heasley, 90 S.W.3d at 188 (quoting National Rejectors, Inc. v. Trieman, 409 S.W.2d 1, 18-19 (Mo. banc 1966)). 2 Some factors to be considered in determining whether certain information is a trade secret are: “(1) the extent to which the information is known outside of his business; (2) the extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in his business; | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Healthcare Services of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland
green
1 sentence2009A “trade secret” can be “ ‘any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.’ ” Kessler-Heasley, 90 S.W.3d at 188 (quoting National Rejectors, Inc. v. Trieman, 409 S.W.2d 1, 18-19 (Mo. banc 1966)). 2 Some factors to be considered in determining whether certain information is a trade secret are: “(1) the extent to which the information is known outside of his business; (2) the extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in his business; | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Hendricks v. Northcutt
green
1 sentence2004Furthermore, in Hendriclcs the plaintiffs did absolutely nothing to invoke their rights for several years, id. at 691 , whereas here, appellants sued on the Contract to prevent the sale to the Fuemmelers within a short time after discovering, on their own and with no assistance from Whitlock, the identity of the buyers, and realizing that they were business competitors. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
AEE-EMF, INC. v. Passmore
green
1 sentence1997Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Keller v. Missouri Baptist Hospital of Sullivan
green
1 sentence1995Keller, 800 S.W.2d at 38 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
USA Chem, Inc. v. Lewis
green
1 sentence1988Rejecting the argument, the appellate court explained that mutuality of obligation is often confused with consideration; that consideration is essential but mutuality of obligation is not, unless want of mutuality would leave one party without a valid or available consideration for his promise. 557 S.W.2d at 24 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.