934 So. 2d 307 - CBD Docusource, Inc. v. Franks’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 808 So. 2d 294 - SWAT 24 Shreveport Bossier, Inc. v. Bond · 707 So. 2d 482 - Henderson Implement Co., Inc. v. Langley · 727 So. 2d 695 - Moores Pump and Supply, Inc. v. Laneaux · 892 So. 2d 595 - CLASS ACTION CLAIM SERVICES v. Clark
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We acknowledge the cases cited by Docusource for the proposition that La. R.S. 23:921 itself contains a severability clause that permits reformation of a non-competition agreement that is over-broad. However, we interpret that statutory language differently, bearing in mind the public policy against non-competition agreements. In our view, the phrase “or provision thereof’ refers to a non-competition provision within a contract that deals with other matters, such as an overall employment agreement. The phrase allows for nullification of the offending non-competition provision without voiding the entire employment agreement. However, where the entire agreement is | concerned with non-competition, like the agreement in this case, we believe one portion cannot be severed from the remainder absent a specific severability clause. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in holding that the entire non-competition agreement is null and void.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Our review of the jurisprudence indicates that when a non-compete clause is overbroad in its geographical boundaries, the court should delete the overbroad portions and enforce the remainder of the geographic restriction provision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.