Florida Statute 542.33 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIII
REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS

Chapter 542
COMBINATIONS RESTRICTING TRADE OR COMMERCE

View Entire Chapter

542.33 Contracts in restraint of trade valid.—

¹(1) Notwithstanding other provisions of this part to the contrary, each contract by which any person is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, as provided by subsections (2) and (3) hereof, is to that extent valid, and all other contracts in restraint of trade are void.

(2)(a) One who sells the goodwill of a business, or any shareholder of a corporation selling or otherwise disposing of all of her or his shares in said corporation, may agree with the buyer, and one who is employed as an agent, independent contractor, or employee may agree with her or his employer, to refrain from carrying on or engaging in a similar business and from soliciting old customers of such employer within a reasonably limited time and area, so long as the buyer or any person deriving title to the goodwill from her or him, and so long as such employer, continues to carry on a like business therein. Said agreements may, in the discretion of a court of competent jurisdiction, be enforced by injunction. However, the court shall not enter an injunction contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare or in any case where the injunction enforces an unreasonable covenant not to compete or where there is no showing of irreparable injury. However, use of specific trade secrets, customer lists, or direct solicitation of existing customers shall be presumed to be an irreparable injury and may be specifically enjoined. In the event the seller of the goodwill of a business, or a shareholder selling or otherwise disposing of all her or his shares in a corporation breaches an agreement to refrain from carrying on or engaging in a similar business, irreparable injury shall be presumed.

(b) The licensee, or any person deriving title from the licensee, of the use of a trademark or service mark, and the business format or system identified by that trademark or service mark, may agree with the licensor to refrain from carrying on or engaging in a similar business and from soliciting old customers of such licensor within a reasonably limited time and area, so long as the licensor, or any person deriving title from the licensor, continues to carry on a like business therein. Said agreements may, in the discretion of a court of competent jurisdiction, be enforced by injunction.

(3) Partners may, upon or in anticipation of a dissolution of the partnership, agree that all or some of them will not carry on a similar business within a reasonably limited time and area.

(4) This section does not apply to any litigation which may be pending, or to any cause of action which may have accrued, prior to May 27, 1953.

History.—ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, ch. 28048, 1953; s. 1, ch. 79-43; s. 2, ch. 80-28; s. 1, ch. 87-40; s. 1, ch. 88-400; s. 1, ch. 90-216; s. 2, ch. 96-257; s. 756, ch. 97-103; s. 19, ch. 2025-213.

¹Note.—Amended by s. 19, ch. 2025-213, effective July 1, 2025, per s. 22, ch. 2025-213. Chapter 2025-213 became law without the Governor’s signature on July 3, 2025, per s. 8(a), Art. III of the State Constitution. In Re Advisory Opinion to the Governor Request of June 29, 1979, 374 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1979), specifies the constitutional effective date in s. 9, Art. III of the State Constitution in this situation. The constitutional effective date is August 15, 2025, for ch. 2025-213.

Note.—Former s. 542.12.

F.S. 542.33 on Google Scholar

F.S. 542.33 on CourtListener

Amendments to 542.33

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 542.33

Total Results: 107

Liberty American Insurance Group, Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C.

199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 2001 WL 1850837

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 15, 2001 | Docket: 2286828

Cited 285 times | Published

enforce an alleged non-compete agreement. Fla. Stat. § 542.33 provides for enforcement of non-compete agreements

Amey, Inc., and John C. Amis, Jr. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc., Amey, Inc., and John C. Amis, Jr. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc.

758 F.2d 1486, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29411, 53 U.S.L.W. 2561

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Apr 29, 1985 | Docket: 237063

Cited 193 times | Published

of the court. 2 . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 542.33 provides in part: (1) Every contract by

Proudfoot Consulting Co. v. Gordon

576 F.3d 1223, 29 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 806, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17057, 2009 WL 2256016

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jul 30, 2009 | Docket: 1537359

Cited 85 times | Published

decided under the earlier *1240 statute, Fla. Stat. § 542.33(2)(a), which does not apply to the Agreement,

Scheck v. Burger King Corp.

756 F. Supp. 543, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1444, 1991 WL 15124

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jan 15, 1991 | Docket: 2507262

Cited 55 times | Published

in the community is part of a sale. Fla.Stat. § 542.33(2)(a) (1989). Defendant Burger King argues that

Wright & Seaton, Inc. v. Prescott

420 So. 2d 623, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21873

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 15, 1982 | Docket: 677425

Cited 37 times | Published

part of the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980 as section 542.33, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980). [2] The absence

Hapney v. Central Garage, Inc.

579 So. 2d 127, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1344

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 1, 1991 | Docket: 1728843

Cited 36 times | Published

Florida Statutes (1953) (renumbered in 1980 as section 542.33), which acknowledged the common law principle

Gupton v. Village Key & Saw Shop, Inc.

656 So. 2d 475, 10 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1224, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 272, 1995 Fla. LEXIS 985, 1995 WL 355433

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 15, 1995 | Docket: 160771

Cited 33 times | Published

Const. We hold that the 1990 amendment to section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), should be applied

Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin

482 So. 2d 486

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 21, 1986 | Docket: 1769498

Cited 32 times | Published

from violating the restrictive covenants.[1] Section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), specifically

Capraro v. Lanier Business Products, Inc.

466 So. 2d 212, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 178, 1985 Fla. LEXIS 3106

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 21, 1985 | Docket: 438749

Cited 27 times | Published

has created exceptions to this general rule. See § 542.33, Fla. Stat. (1981) (formerly § 542.12). In Miller

Corporate Exp. Office Products, Inc. v. Phillips

847 So. 2d 406, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 321, 19 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1505, 2003 Fla. LEXIS 521, 2003 WL 1883697

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 17, 2003 | Docket: 1290227

Cited 24 times | Published

between Farrell and Bishop, are governed by section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1985), which states in pertinent

Colucci v. Kar Kare Automotive Group, Inc.

918 So. 2d 431, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 780, 2006 WL 167939

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 25, 2006 | Docket: 3020

Cited 23 times | Published

discretion, rather than the other way around. Section 542.33 permits an owner selling his business to be

Bradley v. Health Coalition, Inc.

687 So. 2d 329, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 427, 1997 WL 43456

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 5, 1997 | Docket: 1253609

Cited 22 times | Published

applicable here is section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1991).[2] As amended in 1990, section 542.33 has placed

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. v. Carter

9 So. 3d 1258, 29 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 633, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3459, 2009 WL 1097261

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 24, 2009 | Docket: 2518682

Cited 17 times | Published

provided that, except to the extent authorized in section 542.33(2) and (3), all restraints of trade were illegal

Alvarez v. Rendon

953 So. 2d 702, 2007 WL 1010297

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 2007 | Docket: 1332637

Cited 17 times | Published

competitive to the business of the Corporation. Under section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2005): One who sells

Ice Cold Auto Air of Clearwater, Inc. v. Cold Air & Accessories, Inc.

828 F. Supp. 925, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15250, 1993 WL 276472

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Jun 7, 1993 | Docket: 2251966

Cited 14 times | Published

a non-compete agreement under Florida Statutes § 542.33 Count VII: violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Hagerty

808 F. Supp. 1555, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19200, 1992 WL 372230

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Oct 27, 1992 | Docket: 961766

Cited 14 times | Published

court held that under § 542.12 Fla.Stat., now § 542.33, an enforceable non-competition agreement "must

Xerographics, Inc. v. Thomas

537 So. 2d 140, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 135, 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 60, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5802, 1988 WL 139107

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 30, 1988 | Docket: 163279

Cited 13 times | Published

agreements are valid and enforceable in Florida. § 542.33, Fla. Stat. (1985); Graphic Business Systems,

Xerographics, Inc. v. Thomas

537 So. 2d 140, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 135, 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 60, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5802, 1988 WL 139107

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 30, 1988 | Docket: 163279

Cited 13 times | Published

agreements are valid and enforceable in Florida. § 542.33, Fla. Stat. (1985); Graphic Business Systems,

Whitby v. Infinity Radio Inc.

951 So. 2d 890, 2007 WL 162753

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 24, 2007 | Docket: 1280405

Cited 12 times | Published

applying section 542.335, and not its predecessor, section 542.33, which was in effect when the 1995 Agreement

Lovell Farms, Inc. v. Levy

641 So. 2d 103, 1994 WL 45171

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 15, 1994 | Docket: 1648569

Cited 12 times | Published

For many years, courts narrowly construed section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), governing non-compete

Jewett Orthopaedic Clinic, PA v. White

629 So. 2d 922, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11980, 1993 WL 495971

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 3, 1993 | Docket: 1263582

Cited 12 times | Published

the public health, safety and welfare under section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1991). Dr. White moved for

Sarasota Beverage Co. v. Johnson

551 So. 2d 503, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 416

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 2, 1989 | Docket: 1525610

Cited 12 times | Published

Sarasota County expand. We first observe that section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1987), has validated noncompetition

Sarasota Beverage Co. v. Johnson

551 So. 2d 503, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 416

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 2, 1989 | Docket: 1525610

Cited 12 times | Published

Sarasota County expand. We first observe that section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1987), has validated noncompetition

In Re Printronics, Inc.

189 B.R. 995, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 247, 35 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 84, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 1835, 28 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 333, 1995 WL 761558

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 1995 | Docket: 1446784

Cited 11 times | Published

limited as to time and area. Florida Statutes § 542.33(2)(b)[5]. While the Florida statute is not identical

Applewhite v. SHEEN FINANCIAL RESOURCES

608 So. 2d 80, 1992 WL 295449

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 21, 1992 | Docket: 1732412

Cited 11 times | Published

clauses, seeking injunctive relief pursuant to section 542.33, Florida Statutes, damages for breach of contract

Sentry Ins. v. Dunn

411 So. 2d 336

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 24, 1982 | Docket: 1696890

Cited 11 times | Published

a preliminary and permanent injunction.[2] Section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1981), recognizes the validity

Leighton v. First Universal Lending, LLC

925 So. 2d 462, 2006 WL 931306

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 12, 2006 | Docket: 1516950

Cited 10 times | Published

acknowledge the trial court applied a statute, section 542.33, Florida Statutes, which had been repealed

Passalacqua v. Naviant, Inc.

844 So. 2d 792, 2003 WL 21076835

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 14, 2003 | Docket: 1197378

Cited 10 times | Published

More particularly, the predecessor statute, section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1989).

Dyer v. Pioneer Concepts, Inc.

667 So. 2d 961, 1996 WL 60464

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 14, 1996 | Docket: 160769

Cited 10 times | Published

to work for Classic Leasing in March 1995. Section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that

Kverne v. Rollins Protective Serv.

515 So. 2d 1320, 1987 WL 1584

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 17, 1987 | Docket: 1467478

Cited 10 times | Published

1980) rev. denied, 419 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 1982); § 542.33(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1985). "The only authority

Capraro v. Lanier Business Products, Inc.

445 So. 2d 719, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11974

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 29, 1984 | Docket: 1288050

Cited 10 times | Published

enforced "within a reasonably limited time and area." § 542.33, Fla. Stat. (1981). In Silvers, a one-year limitation

AMERICA II ELECTRONICS INC. v. Smith

830 So. 2d 906, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 17120, 2002 WL 31556578

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 20, 2002 | Docket: 580967

Cited 9 times | Published

case. It was decided under the 1991 version of section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), which provided

Sun Elastic Corp. v. OB INDUSTRIES

603 So. 2d 516, 1992 WL 123429

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 9, 1992 | Docket: 1739081

Cited 9 times | Published

customers. Even under the 1990 amendment to section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1989),[1] which was

Dad's Properties, Inc. v. Lucas

545 So. 2d 926, 1989 WL 49592

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 30, 1989 | Docket: 1345803

Cited 9 times | Published

Inc., 403 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). See § 542.33, Fla. Stat. (1987). In West Shore Restaurant Corp

Air Ambulance Network, Inc. v. Floribus

511 So. 2d 702, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2039

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 18, 1987 | Docket: 1431613

Cited 9 times | Published

noncompete agreements, which are validated by Section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1981), our supreme court

Graphic Business Systems, Inc. v. Rogge

418 So. 2d 1084, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20714

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 4, 1982 | Docket: 1686008

Cited 9 times | Published

covenants not to compete are valid in Florida. § 542.33, Fla. Stat. (1981). The agreement must be reasonable

Coastal Computer Corp. v. TEAM MGT. SYSTEMS

624 So. 2d 352, 1993 WL 356912

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 15, 1993 | Docket: 475620

Cited 8 times | Published

Frank, 176 So.2d 113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). Section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1991), empowers a court

Leesburg Cancer Center v. Leesburg Regional

972 So. 2d 203, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 17776, 2007 WL 3302439

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 9, 2007 | Docket: 1158742

Cited 7 times | Published

unlawful restraint of trade, unenforceable under section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1985). The Cancer Center

Lotenfoe v. Pahk

747 So. 2d 422, 1999 WL 1111772

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 8, 1999 | Docket: 1475385

Cited 7 times | Published

noncompetition clause in the employment agreement. Section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1995), controls enforcement

Joseph U. Moore, Inc. v. Howard

534 So. 2d 935, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2743, 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 46, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5534, 1988 WL 133898

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 16, 1988 | Docket: 1707396

Cited 7 times | Published

rev. denied, 508 So.2d 15 (Fla. 1987), "under section 542.33(2)(a), an employer may prevent a former employee

Miller v. Preefer

1 So. 3d 1278, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1281, 2009 WL 383565

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 2009 | Docket: 1653340

Cited 6 times | Published

illegal restraint of trade in violation of section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1993), which statutory provision

Scarbrough v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co.

872 So. 2d 283, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 4111, 2004 WL 624963

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 31, 2004 | Docket: 1357319

Cited 6 times | Published

professions are void unless expressly authorized by section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1995).[1] He cites

Jkr v. Triple Check Tax Service

736 So. 2d 43, 1999 WL 333187

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 27, 1999 | Docket: 1435407

Cited 6 times | Published

, 685 So.2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (under section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1995), which permitted contracts

Health Care Management v. McCombes

661 So. 2d 1223, 1995 WL 557524

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 22, 1995 | Docket: 532541

Cited 6 times | Published

interests to be protected within the meaning of section 542.33, Florida Statutes, inasmuch as its purported

State Chemical Mfg. Co. v. Lopez

642 So. 2d 1127, 1994 WL 510918

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 21, 1994 | Docket: 1529400

Cited 6 times | Published

motion. The issue on appeal is controlled by section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes, as amended in chapter

Chandra v. Gadodia

610 So. 2d 15, 1992 WL 338529

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 20, 1992 | Docket: 1414010

Cited 6 times | Published

the effective date of the 1990 amendment to section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), it would have

FLA. PEST CONTROL & CHEM. CO. v. Thomas

520 So. 2d 669, 1988 WL 14571

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 24, 1988 | Docket: 1300331

Cited 6 times | Published

foregoing established contract principles. Section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1985) provides, in

Ware v. Money-Plan International, Inc.

467 So. 2d 1072

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 24, 1985 | Docket: 1275448

Cited 6 times | Published

restraint of trade and therefore violative of section 542.33(1), Florida Statutes (1983). The appellee corporation

Bauer v. Dilib, Inc.

16 So. 3d 318, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13769, 2009 WL 2949296

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 16, 2009 | Docket: 2551212

Cited 5 times | Published

derives from section 542.335 or its predecessor, section 542.33, Florida Statutes.[2] Rather, such power has

Globe Data Systems v. Johnson

745 So. 2d 1101, 1999 WL 1082525

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 3, 1999 | Docket: 1689237

Cited 5 times | Published

That agreement, however, and its review under section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1991), governs the outcome

Kephart v. Hair Returns, Inc.

685 So. 2d 959, 1996 WL 734777

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 26, 1996 | Docket: 1415835

Cited 5 times | Published

the written customer information documents. Section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1995), provides in pertinent

Sabina v. Dahlia Corp.

650 So. 2d 96, 1995 WL 29052

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 27, 1995 | Docket: 1346466

Cited 5 times | Published

from memory qualifies as a customer list under section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1993), and Templeton v.

Frumkes v. Beasley-Reed Broadcasting of Miami, Inc.

533 So. 2d 942, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2580, 3 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1685, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5121, 1988 WL 123823

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 22, 1988 | Docket: 1232431

Cited 5 times | Published

the injunction. Non-compete agreements and section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), which permits

Joseph U. Moore, Inc. v. Neu

500 So. 2d 561, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2386, 1 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1710, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10574

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 12, 1986 | Docket: 1689468

Cited 5 times | Published

clause violated section 542.33(2), Florida Statutes (1985). The court stated that section 542.33(2) only allows

Dorminy v. Frank B. Hall & Co., Inc.

464 So. 2d 154

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 17, 1985 | Docket: 1661343

Cited 5 times | Published

valid and enforceable against Dorminy under section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1983) as a person

USI INS. SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. v. Pettineo

987 So. 2d 763, 2008 WL 2744409

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 16, 2008 | Docket: 1723686

Cited 4 times | Published

in this case stems from the application of section 542.33, the predecessor version of section 542.335

Sears Termite & Pest Control v. Arnold

745 So. 2d 485, 1999 WL 1049810

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 22, 1999 | Docket: 1294673

Cited 4 times | Published

Inc., 667 So.2d 961, 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). See § 542.33(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997) ("direct solicitation

Health Care Financial Enterprises v. Levy

715 So. 2d 341, 14 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 539, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 10320, 1998 WL 466721

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 12, 1998 | Docket: 1366306

Cited 4 times | Published

law and reverse. Before the 1990 amendment, section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1989) provided in

King v. Jessup

698 So. 2d 339, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1948

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 15, 1997 | Docket: 434503

Cited 4 times | Published

obtaining a temporary injunction pursuant to section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1993), had not been demonstrated

US Floral Corp. v. Salazar

475 So. 2d 1305

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 24, 1985 | Docket: 2568243

Cited 4 times | Published

agreement entered into by the parties under Section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1983). The trial court

ROLLINS PROTECTIVE SERV., CO. v. Lammons

472 So. 2d 812, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1652

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 1985 | Docket: 1793497

Cited 4 times | Published

effect upon the employee." 389 So.2d at 1063. Section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes, (1983) specifically

ROLLINS PROTECTIVE SERV., CO. v. Lammons

472 So. 2d 812, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1652

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 1985 | Docket: 1793497

Cited 4 times | Published

effect upon the employee." 389 So.2d at 1063. Section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes, (1983) specifically

Cherry, Bekaert & Holland v. LaSalle

413 So. 2d 436, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20022

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 4, 1982 | Docket: 1345129

Cited 4 times | Published

said three (3) year period. [2] Renumbered as § 542.33, effective October 1, 1980.

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Waxman

95 So. 3d 928, 34 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 307, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12654, 2012 WL 3138681

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 3, 2012 | Docket: 60311346

Cited 3 times | Published

2008), which analyzed the predecessor statute, section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1985). In the second case

Cooper v. THOMAS CRAIG & COMPANY, LLP

906 So. 2d 378, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11192, 2005 WL 1705124

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 22, 2005 | Docket: 83137

Cited 3 times | Published

the parties assumed that the 1990 version of section 542.33, Florida Statutes, applied to this dispute

Marx v. Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc.

887 So. 2d 405, 2004 WL 2290615

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 13, 2004 | Docket: 1194899

Cited 3 times | Published

the agreement is reasonable as to time and area. § 542.33(2)(a) ("one who is employed... may agree with

Chase Manhattan Bank v. DIME SAV. BANK OF NEW YORK

961 F. Supp. 275, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6515, 1997 WL 240696

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: May 5, 1997 | Docket: 2170067

Cited 3 times | Published

irreparable. While it may be true that Fla. Stat. § 542.33(2)(a) provides for a presumptive finding of irreparable

Miami Electronics Center, Inc. v. Saporta

597 So. 2d 903, 1992 WL 79310

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 1992 | Docket: 1350965

Cited 3 times | Published

was illegal and therefore unenforceable under Section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1991), and (b) the plaintiff

AGS Computer Services, Inc. v. Rodriguez

592 So. 2d 801, 1992 WL 16663

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 5, 1992 | Docket: 1053620

Cited 3 times | Published

a covenant not-to-compete. *802 Pursuant to section 542.33, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990), irreparable

Carnahan v. Alexander Proudfoot Co.

581 So. 2d 184, 1991 WL 82514

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 22, 1991 | Docket: 1683948

Cited 3 times | Published

involving covenants not to compete is authorized by section 542.33, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990). Before the

Pino v. SPANISH BROADCASTING SYSTEM OF FLA., INC.

564 So. 2d 186

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 26, 1990 | Docket: 1294353

Cited 3 times | Published

for declaratory relief, contending that under section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1985),[3] the purported

Marshall v. Gore

506 So. 2d 91

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 1, 1987 | Docket: 1700352

Cited 3 times | Published

argues that the noncompete agreement violates section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1981) because the restrictions

Flatley v. Forbes

483 So. 2d 483

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 12, 1986 | Docket: 455948

Cited 3 times | Published

covenant was void and unenforceable by reason of section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1983). Forbes also sought

Lenox v. Sound Entertainment, Inc.

470 So. 2d 77, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1404, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14358

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 5, 1985 | Docket: 1262100

Cited 3 times | Published

an unlawful restraint of trade pursuant to section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1983).[1] The issue for

Tiffany Sands, Inc. v. Mezhibovsky

463 So. 2d 349, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 204, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 11942

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 15, 1985 | Docket: 449032

Cited 3 times | Published

non-competition clause is reasonable on its face. See § 542.33(2), Fla. Stat. (1983). The main arguments made

Herndon v. Eli Witt Co.

420 So. 2d 920, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21447, 1982 Trade Cas. (CCH) 65,007

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 21, 1982 | Docket: 1306898

Cited 3 times | Published

hold the covenant not to compete void under Section 542.33(1), Florida Statutes (1981) as a contract in

Henao v. Professional Shoe Repair, Inc.

929 So. 2d 723, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8244, 2006 WL 1459553

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 26, 2006 | Docket: 1726939

Cited 2 times | Published

2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), holds that under section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1983), a covenant prohibiting

Gray v. Prime Management Group, Inc.

912 So. 2d 711, 2005 WL 2861297

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 2, 2005 | Docket: 1755518

Cited 2 times | Published

effective date before July 1, 1996 are governed by section 542.33, Florida Statutes. See § 542.331, Fla. Stat

Servpro Industries, Inc. v. Spohn

638 So. 2d 1001, 1994 WL 261342

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 15, 1994 | Docket: 1652577

Cited 2 times | Published

applicable to the present case, is found in section 542.33(2)(b), which allows a licensor and licensee

Village Key & Saw Shop, Inc. v. Gupton

639 So. 2d 102, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5655, 1994 WL 248260

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 1994 | Docket: 1310508

Cited 2 times | Published

noncompete clause and contends that, pursuant to section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1993), it was entitled to

Dunkin v. BARKUS & KRONSTADT, DO'S, PA

533 So. 2d 877, 1988 WL 114742

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 1, 1988 | Docket: 2541241

Cited 2 times | Published

validity of the non-competitive agreement under section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1987) nor of the reasonableness

Avalon Legal Information Services, Inc. v. Keating

110 So. 3d 75, 2013 WL 843033, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3747

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 8, 2013 | Docket: 60230495

Cited 1 times | Published

987 So.2d 763, 766 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); see also § 542.33(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). Alternatively, Avalon

Wolf v. JAMES G. BARRIE, PA

858 So. 2d 1083, 2003 WL 22214026

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 26, 2003 | Docket: 1513519

Cited 1 times | Published

appeal. This noncompete agreement is governed by section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes *1085 (1991). See Gupton

Kupscznk v. Blasters, Inc.

647 So. 2d 888, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10759, 1994 WL 617110

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 9, 1994 | Docket: 1524756

Cited 1 times | Published

Kupscznk caused Blasters irreparable harm. See § 542.33, Fla. Stat. (1991); Hapney; Sarasota Beverage

SPENCER PEST CONTROL v. Smith

637 So. 2d 292, 1994 WL 157085

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 29, 1994 | Docket: 422871

Cited 1 times | Published

denied the temporary injunction. We affirm. Section 542.33(1), Florida Statutes (1993) makes all contracts

Best Towing & Recovery, Inc. v. Beggs

531 So. 2d 243, 1988 WL 97825

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 21, 1988 | Docket: 543985

Cited 1 times | Published

was invalid and unenforceable by reason of section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1985), the trial court granted

RAUCH, WEAVER, NORFLEET, KURTZ & CO, INC. v. GARNAN ENTERPRISES, LLC and NANCY LEGAULT

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 2021 | Docket: 59739254

Published

of trade.” Id. Section 542.335 replaced section 542.33, which the legislature repealed “with respect

Collier HMA Physician Management, LLC v. Brian Menichello, M.D.

223 So. 3d 334, 2017 WL 2364675, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7772

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 31, 2017 | Docket: 6067547

Published

that in Corporate Express the court considered section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1985), the version of the

Kforce, Inc. v. Mickenberg

846 So. 2d 1190, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7518, 2003 WL 21180425

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 21, 2003 | Docket: 64823270

Published

direct solicitation of Kforee’s customers. Under section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), “solicitation

Snelling & Snelling, Inc. v. Reynolds

140 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5281, 2001 WL 432391

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 24, 2001 | Docket: 2234902

Published

policy of Florida. See id. According to the Section 542.33, Florida Statutes, two parties may lawfully

Tri-County Sweeping Services, Inc. v. Lawson

757 So. 2d 1290, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6586, 2000 WL 690754

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 31, 2000 | Docket: 64797317

Published

covenant was “void as a matter of law pursuant to § 542.33[,]Contracts in restraint of trade valid, Florida

Diaz v. John Adcock Insurance Agency

729 So. 2d 465, 15 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 479, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3278, 1999 WL 147341

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 1999 | Docket: 64787160

Published

limited circumstances permitted by statute. Section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), expressly provided

CHS Financial Services, Inc. v. Small Business Consultants, Inc.

722 So. 2d 245, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15320, 1998 WL 845900

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 9, 1998 | Docket: 64784906

Published

enforce the terms of the agreement pursuant to section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1991). In its order granting

Amer. Residential Serv. v. Event Tech.

715 So. 2d 1048, 1998 WL 422543

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 29, 1998 | Docket: 1366086

Published

injunctive relief on an inapplicable statute, section 542.33, Florida Statutes, rather than the actually

Village Key & Saw Shop, Inc. v. Gupton

656 So. 2d 164, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 13237, 1994 WL 708212

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 1994 | Docket: 64757124

Published

limitations imposed under the 1990 amendments to section 542.33, Florida Statutes. This court reversed and

Royal Floral Distributors, Inc. v. Karukin

625 So. 2d 1307, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11131, 1993 WL 442190

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 2, 1993 | Docket: 64743819

Published

O.B. Indus., 603 So.2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); § 542.33, Fla.Stat. (1991). Accordingly, the order under

Port-A-Pit, Inc. v. Gerhart (In re Port-A-Pit, Inc.)

138 B.R. 624, 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 49, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 496

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 28, 1992 | Docket: 65780319

Published

are valid and enforceable in Florida. Fla.Stat. § 542.33(2)(a) (1987); Sarasota Beverage Co. v. Johnson

Horn v. Haverfield Corp.

585 So. 2d 1203, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9951, 1991 WL 193118

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 1, 1991 | Docket: 64661650

Published

We need not determine whether the amendment to § 542.33(2)(a) should be applied in the enforcement of

United Marine, Inc. v. Raill

584 So. 2d 1137, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9259, 1991 WL 174524

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 10, 1991 | Docket: 64661137

Published

applying those factors has been shown. See also § 542.33, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1990). Affirmed.

Salamon v. Karan Munuswamy, M.D., P.A.

566 So. 2d 899, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6858, 1990 WL 129689

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 12, 1990 | Docket: 64652945

Published

his entitlement to an injunction, pursuant to section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1989). These allegations

Pino v. Spanish Broadcasting System of Florida, Inc.

564 So. 2d 186, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4590

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 26, 1990 | Docket: 64651624

Published

for declaratory relief, contending that under section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1985),3 the purported

Pino v. Spanish Broadcasting System of Florida, Inc.

564 So. 2d 186, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4590

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 26, 1990 | Docket: 64651624

Published

for declaratory relief, contending that under section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1985),3 the purported

Junior Salesmen of Florida, Inc. v. Bogeajis

541 So. 2d 676, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 778, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1378, 1989 WL 22553

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 1989 | Docket: 64641586

Published

no-compete clauses are governed by statute, section 542.33. When the agreement was signed the statute

Persan v. Sun Mobile Products, Inc.

518 So. 2d 951, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 193, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 73, 1988 WL 1060

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 13, 1988 | Docket: 64632085

Published

stock in a corporation purchased by appellees. See § 542.33(2), Fla. Stat. (1985). In affirming, however,

Amedas, Inc. v. Brown

505 So. 2d 1091

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 29, 1987 | Docket: 1745923

Published

an unlawful restraint of trade pursuant to section 542.33, Florida Statutes (1985). The issue before

Micro Plus, Inc. v. Forte Data Sys., Inc.

484 So. 2d 1340

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 12, 1986 | Docket: 1343637

Published

expressly recognized their validity by adoption of Section 542.33(2)(a).[2] This writer has previously addressed

Tampa Bay Business Publishing Co. v. Zink

439 So. 2d 271, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 21786

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 21, 1983 | Docket: 64600192

Published

unlawful restraint of trade under Florida law. § 542.33(2), Fla.Stat. (1981). See Foster & Co., Inc. v

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.