Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Murfreesboro Medical Clinic, P.A. v. Udom

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided June 29, 2005No. M2003-00313-SC-S09-CVPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJanice M. Holder, J.

Although I agree that the restrictive covenant in this case is unenforceable, I write separately to voice my disagreement with the majority’s holding that restrictive covenants involving physicians are unenforceable and void unless specifically permitted by Tennessee Code Annotated section 63-6-204(d) and (e) (Supp.1998). I do not believe that the legislature’s decision to validate physicians’ restrictive covenants in the two circumstances described in section 63-6-204(d) and (e) prohibits all other restrictive covenants between physicians.

In 1994, the legislature amended section 63-6-204 to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Valley Medical Specialists v. FarberArizona Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Lazy Seven Coal Sales, Inc. v. Stone & Hinds, P.C.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Spiegel v. Thomas, Mann & Smith, P.C.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Swafford v. HarrisTennessee Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Iredell Digestive Disease Clinic v. PetrozzaCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988

2 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