Cambridge Engineering, Inc. v. Mercury Partners 90 BI, 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 a non-solicitation provision that covered “any customer, employee or representative of Employer” was overbroad
• noting that the employer bears the burden of establishing that the full extent of the restriction is necessary to protect its interests
• finding that a provision that barred an employee from soliciting “any customer, employee or representative of Employer” was overbroad
• holding nonsolicitation covenant that covered “any customer, employee or representative of employer” unenforceable because it was “far broader than necessary to protect [the employer’s] interest”
• noting that an omission from the record was not “automatically fatal *** where the court has all the evidence it needs to make a proper decision on the merits under the appropriate standard of review”
• finding severance inappropriate when contractual provisions “severely overbroad,” so “significant modification would be necessary to make them conform to legal standards of reasonableness”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).