Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

442 N.W.2d 85

Presto-X-Co. v. Ewing

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided June 14, 1989

Supreme Court of Iowa · decided 1989-06-14

Relies on Felton Beauty Supply Company Inc. v. Levy

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-06-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2017

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

801989199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HARRIS, Justice

¶1(dissenting).

¶2I respectfully dissent. The majority concedes the employer itself breached the contract by failing to give written notice to Ewing that he was fired. This failure should preclude the employer from calling upon the court to enforce the contract. See Felton Beauty Supply Co. v. Levy, 31 S.E.2d 651, 654 (Ga.1944) (failure of employer to give contractually required notice precludes employer from obtaining injunction to enforce covenant not to compete); 54 Am.Jur.2d Monopolies § 570, at 998 (1971) (anticompetitive employment covenants held unenforceable where employer discharged employee without giving contractually required notice); Annotation, 155 A.L.R. 652 (1945). The trial court was correct in rejecting Presto-X’s request for injunctions. The failure should for the same reason also preclude Presto-X from recovering damages.

/442/nw2d/85 · .json · Public domain