Skip to main content
Third Circuit· 4/26/1989

Richard C. Pollard v. Autotote, Ltd

Citations

  • 852 F.2d 67
  • 1988 WL 73191

How courts have described this case

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

  • reasoning that forfeiture-for-competition provisions “restricts an employee’s ability to accept alternate employment”
  • reasoning that forfeiture-for-competition provisions “restricts an employee’s ability to accept alternate employment”
  • applying a reasonableness test to determine if a forfeiture-for-competition provision in a management incentive compensation plan is enforceable
  • noting absence of controlling state law and predicting Delaware courts would evaluate forfeiture-for-competition provisions for reasonableness
  • noting absence of controlling state law and predicting Delaware courts would evaluate forfeiture-for-competition provisions for reasonableness
  • reasoning a forfeiture-for-competition provision “restricts an employee’s ability to accept alternative employment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hutchinson, Scirica, Rosenn

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Richard C. Pollard v. Autotote, Ltd

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.