Legal Opinion

Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Ingram

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided September 17, 1984PublishedCited by 65 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

DROWOTA, Justice.

This appeal under Rule 11, Tenn.R. App.P., involves non-competition clauses in employment contracts. It raises an issue regarding the consideration necessary to support such a covenant when it is entered into after employment has begun. In addition, the Court addresses the issue of whether a covenant not to compete, the geographic and time limitations of which are unnecessarily broad, can be judicially modified so as to make the covenant reasonable and enforceable.

I

The plaintiff-employer, Central Adjustment Bureau, a Texas corporation whose home office is in Dallas,…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Bob Pearsall Motors, Inc. v. Regal Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Raimonde v. Van VlerahOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Karpinski v. IngrasciNew York Court of Appeals · 1971
  4. Sherman v. PfefferkornMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
  5. Allright Auto Parks, Inc. v. BerryTennessee Supreme Court · 1966

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

3Cited by65 opinions

  1. Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Tonya Cooper v. Mrm Investment Company, Terry Rogers and Larry MaysCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
  3. Airline Construction, Inc. v. BarrCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1990
  4. Alcazar v. HayesTennessee Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Vantage Technology, LLC v. CrossCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1999

60 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