Meyer & Meyer Corp. v. Town of Amherst

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 strict 18 application of section 16600 to employment contracts ensures “that every citizen shall 19 retain the right to pursue any lawful employment and enterprise of their choice”
• stating that California “rejected the common law ‘rule of reasonableness’” by enacting the “unambiguous” section 16600, “and if the Legislature intended the statute to apply only to restraints that were unreasonable or overbroad, it could have included language to that effect”
• rejecting contention 2 that court “should adopt a narrow-restraint exception to section 16600”
• discussing the history of § 16600, which dates back to 19th century
• Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 16600 invalidates noncompete contracts unless they are necessary to protect an employer’s trade secrets
• where language of a contract is clear and not absurd, it 9 will be followed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).