Arpac Corp. v. Murray

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a non-solicitation agreement was “enforceable and not void” because it “was reasonably calculated to protect [the employer’s] interest in maintaining a stable work force”
• holding that a non-solicitation agreement was “enforceable and not void” because it “was reasonably calculated to protect [the employer’s] interest in maintaining a stable work force”
• upholding the lower court’s modification of a restrictive covenant where the modification was only slight and “the balance of the restrictions were reasonable” to protect the plaintiff company’s interests
• judicial admission is any admission contained in original verified pleading which is not the product of mistake or inadvertence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).