Wright v. Sport Supply Group, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding probable injury was shown where former employee acknowledged selling products to former employer’s customers
• suggesting that reformation at the temporary injunction stage was appropriate, but remanding for additional fact-finding
• remanding to trial court for reformation where record was unclear as to who former employee's customers were
• upholding a temporary injunction where plaintiff presented testimony that the impact of an employee’s use of confidential client information is difficult to quantify because it is impossible to ascertain when the client will be poached
• non-compete that extends to clients with whom salesman had no dealings with during his employment is unenforceable
• “The trial court does not abuse its discretion when basing its decision on conflicting evidence, nor does it abuse its discretion so long as some evidence of substantive and probative character exists to support its decision.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).