Bonney v. NORTHERN ARIZONA AMUSEMENT COMPANY
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
UDALL, Justice.
Whether a mutual covenant in the contract before us — restricting the parties from engaging in a competitive business for a stated period of years in a given territory— is violative of our statute, is the sole question now to be determined.
It has always been the policy of the common law to foster trade and promote free competition; most states, including Arizona, have statutes prohibiting, within certain limits, monopolies and combinations of capital, skill, or acts in restraint of trade or tending to suppress competition.
The facts, which are not in dispute, may be summarized…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Dodge Stationery Co. v. DodgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Tucson Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Aetna Investment Corp.Arizona Supreme Court · 1952
- Henderson v. JacobsArizona Supreme Court · 1952
- Martin v. HawleyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932
- Flowers v. W. T. Smith. Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1908
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Center Bay Gardens, L.L.C. v. City of Tempe City CouncilCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007