Gary Van Zeeland Talent, Inc. v. Sandas

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a non- disclosure/confidentiality agreement between an employer and employee was an unreasonable restraint of trade governed by Wis. Stat. § 103.465
• noting that nondisclosure provision “constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade” because it sets no limits on geographic area and time
• describing the special need for protection from route salespeople, but concluding that the former employee was akin to a non-route salesperson
• describing the special need for protection from route salespeople, but concluding that the former employee was akin to a non-route salesperson
• noting that restraints on trade “may be unreasonable by a limitation that is overbroad in terms of geographic area or time” in the context of concluding that ban on disclosing customer lists lacking any geographic or time restraint was an unreasonable restraint
• “Where a restraint of trade is tolerated, it is permitted only to the extent absolutely necessary to afford reasonable protection.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).