Miller Mech., Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
Miller Mech., Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“there just isn't any competition in milling-ton, tennessee. emsa isn't operating anywhere close”
87 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Php Healthcare Corporation v. Emsa Limited Partnership (ca4, 1993-12-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974 2000 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#2 Fla. Stat. § 542.12 cited 1× in this case · 19 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Php Healthcare Corporation v. Emsa Limited Partnership (3×) also: Cited "see"
4th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
there just isn't any competition in milling-ton, tennessee. emsa isn't operating anywhere close
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rullex Co., LLC, Aplt. v. Tel-Stream, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see"
Pa. · 2020 · confidence medium
That principle is tempered to some degree by the recognition that, in the modern business environment, such covenants can be “important business tools” which prevent individuals from “‘learning [employers’] trade secrets, befriending their customers and then moving into competition with them.’” Id. at 159, 808 A.2d at 918 (quoting Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So. 2d 11, 12 (Fla. 1974)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) & SC16-400 Elizabeth White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Services of Southeast Florida, LLC., and Americare Home Therapy, Inc., etc. v. Carla Hiles
Fla. · 2017 · confidence medium
See Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co. of Fla., Inc., 183 So.2d 532, 534 (Fla. 1966) (“enforcing non-competes] in such [a] way as to protect the legitimate interests of the employer without doing harm to the public interest, and.without inflicting an unduly harsh or oppressive result on the employee”); Miller Mech., Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla. 1974) (explaining that section 542.335’s predecessor was “designed to allow employers to prevent their employees and agents from learning their trade secrets, befriending their customers and then moving into competition with them”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reliance Wholesale, Inc. v. Godfrey
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
This is so because of the inherently difficult, although not impossible, task of determining just what damage actually is caused by the employee’s breach of the agreement.” Capraro, 466 So.2d at 213 (quoting Miller, 300 So.2d at 12 (citations omitted)); see also Variable Annuity Life Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Proudfoot Consulting Co. v. Gordon
11th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Fla. Stat. § 542.335 (l)(j) ("A court shall enforce a restrictive covenant by any appropriate and effective remedy, including, but not limited to, temporary and permanent injunctions.”); Capraro, 466 So.2d at 213 ("[Although a] ‘court may award damages for breach of contract ... the normal remedy is to grant an injunction .... because of the inherently difficult, although not impossible, task of determining just what damage actually is caused by the employee’s breach of the agreement.' ” (quoting Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla.1974))).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Victaulic Co v. Tieman
3rd Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
Moreover, though still disfavored, Pennsylvania courts recognize that “covenants have developed into important business tools to ‘allow employers to prevent their employees and agents from learning their trade secrets, befriending their customers and then moving into competition with them.’” Hess, 808 A.2d at 159 (quoting Miller Mech., Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla. 1974)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Victaulic Co. v. Tieman
3rd Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
Moreover, though still disfavored, Pennsylvania courts recognize that “covenants have developed into important business tools to ‘allow employers to prevent their employees and agents from learning their trade secrets, befriending their customers and then moving into competition with them.’ ” Hess, 808 A.2d at 918 (quoting Miller Mech., Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla.1974)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hess v. Gebhard & Co. Inc. (2×)
Pa. · 2002 · confidence medium
In contemporary corporate culture, covenants have developed into important business tools to "allow employers to prevent their employees and agents from learning their trade secrets, befriending their customers and then moving into competition with them." Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla.1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MedX, Inc. v. Ranger
E.D. La. · 1992 · confidence medium
Accord U.S. Floral Corp. v. Salazar, 475 So.2d 1305, 1306 (Fla.App. 3d Dist.1985); Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 183 So.2d 532, 535 (Fla.), appeal dism’d, 385 U.S. 11 , 87 S.Ct. 78 , 17 L.Ed.2d 10 (1966); Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla.1974). 7 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hapney v. Central Garage, Inc. (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
The same court held in Akey v. Murphy, 238 So.2d 94, 96-97 (Fla. 1970), "that there was a `reasonable interest' to be protected by the restraining covenant." Later in Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla. 1974), the supreme court explained that section 542.12 "is designed to allow employers to prevent their employees and agents from learning their trade secrets, befriending their customers and then moving into competition with them." The recent decisions of this court are of like tenor.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pino v. SPANISH BROADCASTING SYSTEM OF FLA., INC.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
In particular, "[t]he statute was designed to allow employers to prevent their employees and agents from learning their trade secrets, befriending their customers and then moving into competition with them." Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla. 1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pino v. Spanish Broadcasting System of Florida, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
In particular, “[t]he statute was designed to allow employers to prevent their employees and agents from learning their trade secrets, befriending their customers and then moving into competition with them.” Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla.1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sarasota Beverage Co. v. Johnson (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co. of Florida, 183 So.2d 532, 534 (Fla.), appeal dismissed, 385 U.S. 11 , 87 S.Ct. 78 , 17 L.Ed.2d 10 (1966) ("Absent any overriding public interest in having the restricted employee's services available to it, ... the guidelines to be followed in enforcing any such contract are reasonableness as to time and as to area."); Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla. 1974); Foster & Co. v. Snodgrass, 333 So.2d 521, 522-23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Auto Club Affiliates, Inc. v. Donahey, 281 So.2d 239, 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 285 So…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mendez v. Twenty-Four Collection, Inc.
Fla. Cir. Ct. · 1989 · confidence medium
Said agreements may, in the discretion of a court of competent jurisdiction be enforced by injunction.” “The statute is designated to allow . employers to prevent their employees and agents from learning trade secrets, befriending their customers and then moving into competition with them.” Miller Mechanical, Inc. v Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12 (1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Air Ambulance Network, Inc. v. Floribus
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
Thus in Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla. 1974), it was said that the normal remedy is to grant an injunction... .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Capraro v. Lanier Business Products, Inc.
Fla. · 1985 · confidence medium
This is so because of the inherently difficult, although not impossible, task of determining just what damage actually is caused by the employee's breach of the agreement." 300 So.2d at 12 (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 1st American Systems, Inc. v. Rezatto
S.D. · 1981 · confidence medium
Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla.1974). “[A] covenant is reasonable only if it (1) is no greater than required for the protection of the employer, (2) does not impose undue hardship on the employee and (3) is not injurious to the public.” Blake, Employees Agreement Not to Compete, 73 Harv.L.Rev. 625, 675, 681-84 (1960); See also Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 330(1).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Silvers v. Dis-Com Securities, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1981 · confidence medium
Injunctive relief is therefore the "favored remedy." "The Court may award damages for breach of contract but the normal remedy is to grant an injunction." Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla. 1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DeWoody & Hamner, P. A. v. Gregory
Fla. Cir. Ct., Palm Beach Cty. · 1978 · confidence medium
But as the trial court in Kenco, supra at 274 observed and as the appellate court quoted with approbation, “. . . proving such damages with reasonable certainty is recognized to be an almost impossible burden . . .” Mr. Justice Adkins seemingly concurred in this assessment when he said, “It is precisely because damages are so difficult to show [in cases such as these] that injunctive relief becomes a favored remedy.” Miller Mechanical Inc. v. Ruth, supra at 13.
cited Cited "see" In re Hurvitz
Bankr. D. Mass. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Miller Mech., Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla.1974) (holding that a court may award damages for the breach of a non-compete agreement "but the normal remedy is to grant an injunction. .
cited Cited "see" Partylite Gifts, Inc. v. MacMillan
M.D. Fla. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Miller Mech., Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12-13 (Fla.1974) (citing Kenco Chem. and Manufacturing Co. v. Railey, 286 So.2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)); Flickenger v. R.J.
cited Cited "see" Corporate Management Advisors, Inc. v. Boghos
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11 (Fla. 1974); Health Care Financial Enterprises, Inc. v. Levy, 715 So.2d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
cited Cited "see" Irene Marie, Inc. v. Haines
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See and compare Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11 (Fla.1974).
discussed Cited "see" Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
This favored status is recognized because money damages for breach of non-competition agreements are either not susceptible to proof with the required degree of certainty, Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 183 So.2d 532, 535 (Fla.), appeal dismissed, 385 U.S. 11 , 87 S.Ct. 78 , 17 L.Ed.2d 10 , reh'g denied, 385 U.S. 964 , 87 S.Ct. 390 , 17 L.Ed.2d 310 (1966); see Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla. 1974), or "if susceptible of reasonable proof, may not compensate for all aspects of such a violation." Capraro v. Lanier Business Products, Inc., 445 So.2d 719, 721 (Fla. 4t…
discussed Cited "see" Keller v. Twenty-Four Collection, Inc.
Fla. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11 (Fla. 1974); Akey v. Murphy, 238 So.2d 94 (Fla. 1970); Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 183 So.2d 532 (Fla.), appeal dismissed, 385 U.S. 11 , 87 S.Ct. 78 , 17 L.Ed.2d 10 (1966).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Smart Pharmacy, Inc. v. Viccari
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Smart Pharmacy does not have an adequate remedy at law for the irreparable harm it has suffered, and may continue to suffer, 2 as a result of Appellees’ actions because “monetary damages are difficult to prove with any certainty and ... even if provable, would not adequately compensate for all aspects of the violation of a covenant not to compete.” King v. Jessup, 698 So.2d 339, 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); see also Miller Mech., Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla.1974) (explaining that in cases involving a violation of a covenant not to compete, “the normal remedy is to grant an injuncti…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Worldcom, Inc. (2×)
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Fla. Stat. 542.33 (2005) (Stating that a contract in restraint of trade “may, in the discretion of a court of competent jurisdiction, be enforced by injunction.”); see also Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla.1974).
MILLER MECHANICAL, INC., a Florida Corporation, Petitioner,
v.
Allan F. RUTH, Respondent.
44866.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jul 10, 1974.
300 So. 2d 11
Adkins.
Cited by 62 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 88%
Citer courts: Fourth Circuit (1)

[*12] H. Vernon Davids of Davids, Decker, Henson & Hadley, Orlando, for petitioner.

R.L. Russell of Van Den Berg, Gay, Burke & Dyer, Orlando, for respondent.

ADKINS, Chief Justice.

This cause is before the Court on a petition for writ of certiorari directed to the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 287 So.2d 174, which allegedly conflicts with the decision in Data Supplies, Inc. v. Cowart, 240 So.2d 829 (Fla.App.2d, 1970).

The facts, as determined by the trial judge and affirmed by the District Court of Appeal, are as follows: Respondent, hereinafter referred to as defendant, entered into a contract of employment with petitioner, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, on December 15, 1970. The contract provided that defendant "would not engage in the ownership or operation of a competing business of the same type as the company of Miller Mechanical, Inc., for a period of three years or in a radius of fifty miles." The trial judge found that the contract was valid but unreasonable as to the length of time defendant was proscribed from competing with plaintiff. Although there was no question but that defendant had breached the contract, the trial judge held that the plaintiff had not suffered any pecuniary damages. In finding that the provisions of the contract were unreasonable, the trial judge refused to enforce the contract by way of an injunction and instead awarded nominal damages. The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in a per curiam decision affirmed.

The decision sub judice is in direct conflict with Data Supplies, Inc. v. Cowart, supra. The court in Data Supplies held that where the trial court finds that there is a valid contract it would be error for the court not to grant an appropriate remedy. In the case sub judice, the judge held the contract to be valid but refused to grant an injunction and awarded only nominal damages. There is conflict and we have jurisdiction. Fla. Const., art. V, § 3(b)(3), F.S.A.

At common law agreements not to compete were usually held void as a restraint on trade and as being contrary to public policy. Auto Club Affiliates, Inc. v. Donahey, 281 So.2d 239 (Fla.App.2d, 1973); Atlas Travel Services, Inc. v. Morelly, 98 So.2d 816 (Fla.App.1st, 1957). When the Legislature adopted Fla. Stat. § 542.12, F.S.A. (the controlling statute in this case), it recognized the public policy arguments against agreements restricting competition, but nonetheless found several exceptions from the general rule to be reasonable. The statute is designed to allow employers to prevent their employees and agents from learning their trade secrets, befriending their customers and then moving into competition with them. The agreement, however, must be reasonable as regards the time during and the area within which the employee is to be prevented from competing with the employer. Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 183 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1966). In determining the reasonableness of such an agreement, the courts employ a balancing test to weigh the employer's interest in preventing the competition against the oppressive effect on the employee. Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co., supra; Auto Club Affiliates, Inc. v. Morelly, supra.

The Court may award damages for breach of contract but the normal remedy is to grant an injunction. Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co., supra. This is so because of the inherently difficult, although not impossible, task of determining just what damage actually is caused by the employee's breach of the agreement. In the event a trial court finds the provisions of the agreement to be unreasonable, the correct procedure would be for the Court to modify the agreement and award an appropriate remedy. Kenco Chemical and Manufacturing Co. v. Railey, 286 So.2d 272[*13] (Fla.App.1st, 1973); Auto Club Affiliates, Inc., v. Donahey, supra; and Atlas Travel Services, Inc. v. Morelly, supra.

The trial court in this case determined that part of the contract was unreasonable, refused to enjoin the defendant and awarded only nominal damages because the plaintiff had been unable to prove damages. It is precisely because damages are so difficult to show that injunctive relief becomes a favored remedy. The trial court should have determined what length of time would have been reasonable under all of the circumstances and granted an injunction for that period of time.

The decision of the District Court of Appeal is quashed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with these views.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.