6 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina 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 |
|---|---|---|
Calhoun v. WHA MEDICAL CLINIC, PLLCgreen2 sentences2019Relying on Faidas , this Court in Calhoun v. WHA Medical Clinic, PLLC , considered a non-compete clause and a damages clause dealing with cardiologists and found that "[t]he trial court made findings ... that establish that there is no potential harm to public health given that the physicians were able to pay the liquidated damages and had no plans to leave the area." 178 N.C. 2019App. at 599 , 632 S.E.2d at 572 ("[T]he agreement ... contains an unequivocal non-compete clause, and ... contains a damages provision in the event the Physician desires to practice in violation of the non-compete clause. | 1 | 1 |
Beverage Systems of the Carolinas, LLC v. Associated Beverage Repair, LLCgreen2 sentences2019See Beverage Sys. of the Carolinas, 368 N.C. at 699 , 784 S.E.2d at 461 (“[W]hen an agreement not to compete is found to be unreasonable, . . . the Court is powerless unilaterally to amend the terms of the contract.” (citation omitted)). 2019See Beverage Sys. of the Carolinas, 368 N.C. at 699 , 784 S.E.2d at 461 (“[W]hen an agreement not to compete is found to be unreasonable, . . . the Court is powerless unilaterally to amend the terms of the contract.” (citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Schlieper v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2014A § 2(a).) {12} Additionally, the IP Agreement included a non-compete clause that prohibited Plaintiff from engaging in retail or wholesale business substantially 1 “When documents are attached to and incorporated into a complaint, they become part of the complaint and may be considered in connection with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion without converting it into a motion for summary judgment.” Schlieper v. Johnson, 195 N.C. 2014App. 257, 261 , 672 S.E.2d 548, 551 (2009). | 1 | 1 |
FMC Corp. v. Cyprus Foote Mineral Co.green1 sentence2014App. at 471 , 579 S.E.2d at 455 (“While [plaintiff] might have prevented [defendants] from working in the field of HSHR ADC design and development in the event they ceased working for [plaintiff] by making a non- compete clause part of their employment contract, no such clause has been presented.”); FMC Corp., 899 F. Supp. at 1479 (“[Plaintiff] never asked defendant to sign a covenant not to compete, and [defendant] never did so.”).12 12 Even where an enforceable non-disclosure agreement is present, North Carolina law permits a former employee to “take with him, at the termination of his emplo | 1 | 1 |
Analog Devices, Inc. v. Michalskigreen1 sentence2014App. at 471 , 579 S.E.2d at 455 (“While [plaintiff] might have prevented [defendants] from working in the field of HSHR ADC design and development in the event they ceased working for [plaintiff] by making a non- compete clause part of their employment contract, no such clause has been presented.”); FMC Corp., 899 F. Supp. at 1479 (“[Plaintiff] never asked defendant to sign a covenant not to compete, and [defendant] never did so.”).12 12 Even where an enforceable non-disclosure agreement is present, North Carolina law permits a former employee to “take with him, at the termination of his emplo | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Engineering Associates, Inc. v. Pankow
green
2 sentences2014App. at 471 , 579 S.E.2d at 455 (“While [plaintiff] might have prevented [defendants] from working in the field of HSHR ADC design and development in the event they ceased working for [plaintiff] by making a non- compete clause part of their employment contract, no such clause has been presented.”); FMC Corp., 899 F. Supp. at 1479 (“[Plaintiff] never asked defendant to sign a covenant not to compete, and [defendant] never did so.”).12 12 Even where an enforceable non-disclosure agreement is present, North Carolina law permits a former employee to “take with him, at the termination of his emplo 2014App. at 471 , 579 S.E.2d at 455 (“While [plaintiff] might have prevented [defendants] from working in the field of HSHR ADC design and development in the event they ceased working for [plaintiff] by making a non- compete clause part of their employment contract, no such clause has been presented.”); FMC Corp., 899 F. Supp. at 1479 (“[Plaintiff] never asked defendant to sign a covenant not to compete, and [defendant] never did so.”).12 12 Even where an enforceable non-disclosure agreement is present, North Carolina law permits a former employee to “take with him, at the termination of his emplo | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Bolz v. Myers
green
2 sentences2011Plaintiff cites a Montana Supreme Court decision, Bolz v. Myers, 651 P.2d 606 (Mont. 1982), in support of its position. 2011Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Finch Bros. v. Michael
green
2 sentences2011Plaintiff cites our Supreme Court’s ruling in Finch Brothers v. Michael, 167 N.C. 322 , 83 S.E. 458 (1914), as support for its proposition that a party violates a non-compete agreement by holding a pecuniary interest in a competitor of the party protected by the agreement. 2011Plaintiff cites our Supreme Court’s ruling in Finch Brothers v. Michael, 167 N.C. 322 , 83 S.E. 458 (1914), as support for its proposition that a party violates a non-compete agreement by holding a pecuniary interest in a competitor of the party protected by the agreement. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Consolidated Textiles, Inc. v. Sprague
green
2 sentences2002App. 132 , 450 S.E.2d 348 (1994), this Court held no substantial right was affected when it upheld a non-compete clause restricting the defendant from contacting the plaintiff’s customers actively solicited within the year prior to the defendant’s resignation or disclosing to third persons information identified as plaintiff’s trade secrets. 2002Id. at 134 , 450 S.E.2d at 349 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.