Legal Opinion
Herrington v. Hall
Missouri Court of Appeals
Decided September 22, 1981No. WD 32466PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MANFORD, Presiding Judge.
Appellants seek equitable enforcement of a contractual covenant not to compete and damages for the breach thereof. Trial was had to the court without a jury. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions.
Two points of error are presented, which in summary charge the trial court erred by holding that (a) the non-compete clause was unreasonable and unenforceable and (b) damages were too speculative.
In 1969, Jim Tharp commenced operating a motor service business named Vee Village. In addition to servicing Volkswagen automobiles, the business included a…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Murphy v. CarronSupreme Court of Missouri · 1976
- Coonis v. RogersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1968
- John Roane, Inc. v. TweedSupreme Court of Delaware · 1952
- Mills v. MurrayMissouri Court of Appeals · 1971
- Willman v. BehelerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1973
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Osage Glass, Inc. v. DonovanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1985
- A.B. Chance Co. v. SchmidtMissouri Court of Appeals · 1986
- Ranch Hand Foods, Inc. v. Polar Pak Foods, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1985
- Mo-Kan Central Recovery Co. v. HedenkampMissouri Court of Appeals · 1984
- Gasser v. John Knox VillageMissouri Court of Appeals · 1988
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.