State of Iowa v. Thomas Deshawn Holmes

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that appellees’ argument that “the balance of harms favors them because they would suffer harm if they were enjoined” was in conflict with section 542.335(l)(g)(l)
• concluding that appellees’ argument that “the balance of harms favors them because they would suffer harm if they were enjoined” was in conflict with section 542.335(l)(g)(l)
• finding neither trial court nor enjoined party identified public policy that would override enforcement of valid non-compete covenant
• “[Petitioner] presented a prima facie case ... [s]imply stated, [petitioner] established the presumption ... of irreparable injury created by section 542.335(1)©.”
• “[W]here a trial court’s order on a temporary injunction is based on an interpretation of a contract, de novo review is appropriate.”
• “[Petitioner] presented a prima facie case . . . [s]imply stated, [petitioner] established the presumption . . . of irreparable injury created by section 542.335(1)(j).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).