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.
7 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nevada 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 |
|---|---|---|
Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. v. Neargreen2 sentences2016Co. v. Kennebrew, 379 S.W.3d 835, 844 (Mo. 2012) ("[W]hen the provisions of a non-compete clause impose a restraint that is unreasonably broad, appellate courts still can give effect to its purpose by refusing to give effect to the unreasonable terms or modifying the terms of the contract to be reasonable."); Merrimack Valley Wood Prods., Inc. v. Near, 876 A.2d 757, 764 (N.H. 2005) ("Courts have the power to reform overly broad restrictive covenants if the employer shows that it acted in good faith in the execution of the employment contract."); Cardiovascular Surgical Specialists, Corp. v. Ma 2016Co. v. Kennebrew, 379 S.W.3d 835, 844 (Mo. 2012) ("[W]hen the provisions of a non-compete clause impose a restraint that is unreasonably broad, appellate courts still can give effect to its purpose by refusing to give effect to the unreasonable terms or modifying the terms of the contract to be reasonable."); Merrimack Valley Wood Prods., Inc. v. Near, 876 A.2d 757, 764 (N.H. 2005) ("Courts have the power to reform overly broad restrictive covenants if the employer shows that it acted in good faith in the execution of the employment contract"); Cardiovascular Surgical Specialists, Corp. v. Mam | 5 | 5 |
Simpson v. C & R SUPPLY, INC.green2 sentences2016Prods., Inc., 559 A.2d 1051, 1058 (R.I. 1989) ("We believe this is the appropriate time to choose the route that permits unreasonable restraints to be modified and enforced, whether or not their terms are divisible, unless the circumstances indicate bad faith or SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 2 deliberate overreaching on the part of the promisee."); Simpson v. C Si R Supply, Inc., 598 N.W.2d 914, 920 (S.D. 1999) (allowing modification of "noncompetition provisions to conform to the statutory mandate. . . via partial enforcement"). 2016Prods., Inc., 559 A.2d 1051, 1058 (RI. 1989) ("We believe this is the appropriate time to choose the route that permits unreasonable restraints to be modified and enforced, whether or not their terms are divisible, unless the circumstances indicate bad faith or 2 deliberate overreaching on the part of the promisee."); Simpson v. C & R Supply, Inc., 598 N.W.2d 914, 920 (S.D. 1999) (allowing modification of "noncompetition provisions to conform to the statutory mandate. . . via partial enforcement"). | 5 | 5 |
Whelan Security Co. v. Kennebrewgreen2 sentences2016Co. v. Kennebrew, 379 S.W.3d 835, 844 (Mo. 2012) ("[W]hen the provisions of a non-compete clause impose a restraint that is unreasonably broad, appellate courts still can give effect to its purpose by refusing to give effect to the unreasonable terms or modifying the terms of the contract to be reasonable."); Merrimack Valley Wood Prods., Inc. v. Near, 876 A.2d 757, 764 (N.H. 2005) ("Courts have the power to reform overly broad restrictive covenants if the employer shows that it acted in good faith in the execution of the employment contract."); Cardiovascular Surgical Specialists, Corp. v. Ma 2016Co. v. Kennebrew, 379 S.W.3d 835, 844 (Mo. 2012) ("[W]hen the provisions of a non-compete clause impose a restraint that is unreasonably broad, appellate courts still can give effect to its purpose by refusing to give effect to the unreasonable terms or modifying the terms of the contract to be reasonable."); Merrimack Valley Wood Prods., Inc. v. Near, 876 A.2d 757, 764 (N.H. 2005) ("Courts have the power to reform overly broad restrictive covenants if the employer shows that it acted in good faith in the execution of the employment contract"); Cardiovascular Surgical Specialists, Corp. v. Mam | 5 | 5 |
Durapin, Inc. v. American Products, Inc.green2 sentences2016Prods., Inc., 559 A.2d 1051, 1058 (R.I. 1989) ("We believe this is the appropriate time to choose the route that permits unreasonable restraints to be modified and enforced, whether or not their terms are divisible, unless the circumstances indicate bad faith or SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 2 deliberate overreaching on the part of the promisee."); Simpson v. C Si R Supply, Inc., 598 N.W.2d 914, 920 (S.D. 1999) (allowing modification of "noncompetition provisions to conform to the statutory mandate. . . via partial enforcement"). 2016Prods., Inc., 559 A.2d 1051, 1058 (RI. 1989) ("We believe this is the appropriate time to choose the route that permits unreasonable restraints to be modified and enforced, whether or not their terms are divisible, unless the circumstances indicate bad faith or 2 deliberate overreaching on the part of the promisee."); Simpson v. C & R Supply, Inc., 598 N.W.2d 914, 920 (S.D. 1999) (allowing modification of "noncompetition provisions to conform to the statutory mandate. . . via partial enforcement"). | 5 | 5 |
Cardiovascular Surgical Specialists, Corp. v. Mammanagreen2 sentences2016Co. v. Kennebrew, 379 S.W.3d 835, 844 (Mo. 2012) ("[W]hen the provisions of a non-compete clause impose a restraint that is unreasonably broad, appellate courts still can give effect to its purpose by refusing to give effect to the unreasonable terms or modifying the terms of the contract to be reasonable."); Merrimack Valley Wood Prods., Inc. v. Near, 876 A.2d 757, 764 (N.H. 2005) ("Courts have the power to reform overly broad restrictive covenants if the employer shows that it acted in good faith in the execution of the employment contract."); Cardiovascular Surgical Specialists, Corp. v. Ma 2016Co. v. Kennebrew, 379 S.W.3d 835, 844 (Mo. 2012) ("[W]hen the provisions of a non-compete clause impose a restraint that is unreasonably broad, appellate courts still can give effect to its purpose by refusing to give effect to the unreasonable terms or modifying the terms of the contract to be reasonable."); Merrimack Valley Wood Prods., Inc. v. Near, 876 A.2d 757, 764 (N.H. 2005) ("Courts have the power to reform overly broad restrictive covenants if the employer shows that it acted in good faith in the execution of the employment contract"); Cardiovascular Surgical Specialists, Corp. v. Mam | 5 | 5 |
Ticor Title Insurance Co. Chicago Title Insurance Co. v. Kenneth C. Cohengreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Ticor, 173 F.3d at 70 ("New York, following English law, recognizes the availability of injunctive relief where the non-compete covenant is found to be reasonable and the employee's services are unique." (emphasis added)); Johnson Controls, 323 F. Supp. 2d at 532 ("[WIhere an employee with SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 9 (0) 1947A unique client relationships violates a non-compete clause, injunctive relief is ordinarily appropriate because if the unique services of such employee are available to a competitor, the employer obviously suffers irreparable harm." (internal quotation omitted)). 2015See, e.g., Ticor, 173 F.3d at 70 ("New York, following English law, recognizes the availability of injunctive relief where the non-compete covenant is found to be reasonable and the employee's services are unique." (emphasis added)); Johnson Controls, 323 F. Supp. 2d at 532 ("[WIhere an employee with SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 9 (0) 1947A unique client relationships violates a non-compete clause, injunctive relief is ordinarily appropriate because if the unique services of such employee are available to a competitor, the employer obviously suffers irreparable harm." (internal quotation omitted)). | 2 | 2 |
Johnson Controls, Inc. v. A.P.T. Critical Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2015See, e.g., Ticor, 173 F.3d at 70 ("New York, following English law, recognizes the availability of injunctive relief where the non-compete covenant is found to be reasonable and the employee's services are unique." (emphasis added)); Johnson Controls, 323 F. Supp. 2d at 532 ("[WIhere an employee with SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 9 (0) 1947A unique client relationships violates a non-compete clause, injunctive relief is ordinarily appropriate because if the unique services of such employee are available to a competitor, the employer obviously suffers irreparable harm." (internal quotation omitted)). 2015See, e.g., Ticor, 173 F.3d at 70 ("New York, following English law, recognizes the availability of injunctive relief where the non-compete covenant is found to be reasonable and the employee's services are unique." (emphasis added)); Johnson Controls, 323 F. Supp. 2d at 532 ("[WIhere an employee with SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 9 (0) 1947A unique client relationships violates a non-compete clause, injunctive relief is ordinarily appropriate because if the unique services of such employee are available to a competitor, the employer obviously suffers irreparable harm." (internal quotation omitted)). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.