Legal Opinion
Beilfuss v. Huffy Corp.
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
Decided May 12, 2004No. 03-2006PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ANDERSON, PJ.
¶ 1. Strong public policy considerations underpin Wisconsin's law controlling covenants not to compete and lead to the conclusion that the choice of law clause in an employment contract between David Beilfuss and Huffy Corporation is invalid. Because the validity of a choice of law clause is a prerequisite to the validity of a choice of forum clause, it is unreasonable to enforce the provision in the contract selecting Ohio as the exclusive forum for the resolution of any disputes between the parties. Therefore, we reverse the circuit court, which found the provisions on choice…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Raimonde v. Van VlerahOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- Smith, Valentino & Smith, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Bush v. National School Studios, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
- Hall v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Drinkwater v. American Family Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 2006
- Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
- Turcheck v. Amerifund Financial, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007
- Cintas Corp. No. 2 v. Becker Property Services LLCWisconsin Supreme Court · 2018
- Atlas Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. Tri-North Builders, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2021
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.