Legal Opinion

Copeco, Inc. v. Caley

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided December 21, 1992No. CA-8776PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hoffman, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant is Copeco, Inc. and Ronald P. Caley et al. are defendantsappellees.

Statement of the Facts

Appellees Caley and Muntean were copy machine salesmen for appellant in the business of office equipment sales. Muntean began his employment in 1982, as a sales representative, and Caley began with Copeco in a similar capacity in 1987. A few days after Caley was hired, Caley and Muntean were presented with an employment contract containing a covenant not to compete. Prior to being presented with this document Caley and Muntean had been in a traditional…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Raimonde v. Van VlerahOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Cohen & Co. v. MessinaOhio Court of Appeals · 1985
  3. Morgan Lumber Sales Co. v. Toth, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division1974
  4. Nichols v. Waterfield Financial Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1989

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Lake Land Employment Group of Akron, LLC v. ColumberOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Raasch v. NCR Corp.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2003
  3. Lucht's Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. HornerSupreme Court of Colorado · 2011
  4. Camco, Inc. v. BakerNevada Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Poole v. Incentives Unlimited, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1999

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API