Legal Opinion

Midcom, Inc. v. Oehlerking

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 27, 2006No. 23623PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KONENKAMP, Justice.

[¶ 1.] While employed at Midcom, Inc., Anthony J. Oehlerking signed a covenant not to compete. When he resigned to work for a direct competitor, Midcom sought to enforce the covenant. Oehlerk-ing claimed, however, that it was void and otherwise unenforceable. After a trial, the circuit court ruled that the covenant was valid and enforceable. The court issued two judgments, one enjoining Oehlerking from violating the covenant, and one awarding Midcom attorney’s fees based on a provision in the contract allowing a reasonable award of fees to the prevailing party. Oehlerking…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Catlin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. William Knighton, Cross-Appellant v. John C. Watkins, Cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
  4. Morris Obin v. District No. 9 of the International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers Anheuser-Busch, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1981
  5. Schuldies v. MillarSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Knecht v. EvridgeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2020
  2. Farmer v. South Dakota Department of Revenue & RegulationSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Bumpers v. COMMUNITY BANK OF N. VIRGINIASupreme Court of North Carolina · 2010
  4. Link v. L.S.I., Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Huls v. MeyerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2020

9 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