Legal Opinion

Ward v. Midcom, Inc.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 1998No. NonePublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SABERS, Justice.

[¶ 1.] This matter arises out of three contracts executed between the defendant corporation and an employee/shareholder. The disagreement centers on the enforceability of an amended stock purchase agreement and its noncompetition clause. The trial court ruled (1) the noncompetition provision was unenforceable, and (2) the amended stock purchase agreement was not severable and therefore also unenforceable. Midcom appeals (1) and Ward appeals (2). We reverse (1), holding the noncompetition clause was partially enforceable, requiring (2) an increased price under the amended stock…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Poppen v. WalkerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Alverson v. Northwestern National Casualty Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Maynard v. HeerenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Weiss v. Van NormanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
  5. American Rim & Brake, Inc. v. ZoellnerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1986

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Read v. McKennan HospitalSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Chord v. ReynoldsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Communication Technical Systems, Inc. v. DensmoreSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Simpson v. C & R SUPPLY, INC.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Lucero v. Van WieSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999

11 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