Legal Opinion
Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided June 18, 1999No. CV-97-0488-PRPublishedCited by 80 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FELDMAN, Justice.
¶ 1 We granted review to determine whether the restrictive covenant between Dr. Steven Farber and Valley Medical Specialists is enforceable. We hold that it is not. Public policy concerns in this case outweigh Valley Medical’s protectable interests in enforcing the agreement. We thus vacate the court of appeals’ opinion, affirm the trial court’s judgment, and remand to the court of appeals to resolve any remaining issues. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Constitution article VI, § 5(3) and A.R.S. § 12-120.24.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 In 1985, Valley…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Raymundo v. Hammond Clinic Ass'nIndiana Supreme Court · 1983
- Cohen v. LordNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Karlin v. WeinbergSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1978
- Dwyer v. JungNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1975
- Rash v. Toccoa Clinic Medical AssociatesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1984
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by80 opinions
- Murfreesboro Medical Clinic, P.A. v. UdomTennessee Supreme Court · 2005
- Ezell v. QuonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
- Compass Bank v. HartleyDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2006
- Bed Mart, Inc. v. KelleyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
- Maleki v. Desert Palms Professional Properties, L.L.C.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
75 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.