Bed Mart, Inc. v. Kelley

How courts have described this case

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

• accepting 4 prohibition on subsequent employment at mattress stores specifically, because plaintiff 5 could still obtain employment in his specific area of sales expertise—mattresses—at other 6 furniture and department stores
• accepting prohibition on subsequent employment at mattress stores specifically, 12 because plaintiff could still obtain employment in his specific area of sales expertise— 13 mattresses—at other furniture and department stores
• rejecting challenge to covenant prohibiting conduct within 10-mile radius of former employer’s offices
• request for fees under Rule 21, Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., insufficient because rule “does not provide a substantive basis for a fee award”
• request for appellate fees under Rule 21(c), Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., insufficient, as rule “does not provide a substantive basis for a fee award”
• “[ARCAP 21] only sets forth the procedure for requesting fees; it does not provide a substantive basis for a fee award.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).