Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that restrictive covenants were unenforceable notwithstanding the presence of a Pennsylvania choice-of-law clause, “which is void and unenforceable because it attempts to evade California law and public policy.”
• concluding “section 16600 reflects a strong public policy of the 12 State of California”
• finding 22 a “substantial relationship” when “one of the parties to the contract is incorporated in the chosen 23 state”
• finding no reason why California employee’s interests should not be deemed paramount to the competitive business interests of out-of- state as well as in-state employers
• “[Section 16600 reflects a strong public policy of the State of California.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “California has a strong interest in 8 protecting the freedom of movement of persons whom California-based employers . . . wish to 9 employ to provide services in California”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).