Legal Opinion

Bristol Window and Door, Inc. v. Hoogenstyn

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided July 11, 2002No. Docket 226114, 226138, 226139PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGage, P.J.

In these consolidated cases, plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting defendants summary disposition with respect to plaintiffs claims seeking to enforce noncompetition agreements. We reverse and remand.

i

Plaintiff is a company that offers for sale to residential homeowners various home improvement products including windows, doors, and siding. Each individual defendant worked for plaintiff as an “independent sales representative” or “self-employed sales representative” until defendants all ceased working for plaintiff and directed their efforts toward establishing a…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, Appts. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
  2. Maiden v. RozwoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  3. State Oil Co. v. KhanSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  4. Sun Valley Foods Co. v. WardMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  5. In Re MCI Telecommunications ComplaintMichigan Supreme Court · 1999

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, L.L.C. v. Tenke Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
  2. Innovation Ventures v. Liquid ManufacturingMichigan Supreme Court · 2016
  3. Coates v. Bastian Brothers, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007
  4. St Clair Medical, PC v. BorgielMichigan Court of Appeals · 2006
  5. Health Care Ass'n Workers Compensation Fund v. Director of the Bureau of Worker's CompensationMichigan Court of Appeals · 2005

16 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