Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that restrictions which are broader than necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests are generally held invalid
• providing that restrictive agreements are “looked upon with disfavor, cautiously considered, and carefully scrutinized.”
• stating that if a court finds the covenant to be necessary, it must consider the reasonableness of the scope, and the covenant must not impose any greater restriction on the employee than is necessary to protect the employer’s business
• providing non-competes are enforceable only to the extent necessary to protect a legitimate business interest
• reasoning, on summary judgment, that the validity of a restrictive covenant is highly fact-dependent and thus often inappropriate for resolution as a matter of law
• party moving for summary judgment has burden of proof and nonmoving party has benefit of view of evidence in light most favorable to him

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).