Glazer Steel Corp. v. Espenan

306 So. 2d 78, 1974 La. App. LEXIS 3130
Louisiana Court of Appeal·Decided December 10, 1974·No. No. 6438·Published

Opinion

REDMANN, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment refusing to enjoin its former employee (a steel salesman) from working for a competitor. The employment contract had contained a no-competition clause. We affirm.

In support of its position that training and advertising expenditures (including entertainment of and Christmas gifts to customers) brings its contract within the exception of La.R.S. 23:921, plaintiff cites this court’s National School Studios, Inc. v. Barrios, La.App.1970, 236 So.2d 309, and similar cases from other circuits. The cases plaintiff cites are expressly overruled by Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Foti, La.1974, 302 So.2d 593. There are no extraordinary training or advertising expenses in our case which remove it from governance by Foti.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Glazer Steel Corp. v. Espenan, 306 So. 2d 78, 1974 La. App. LEXIS 3130 (La. Ct. App. 1974).

306 So. 2d 78 (Glazer Steel Corp. v. Espenan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

National School Studios, Inc. v. Barrios
236 So. 2d 309 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1970)
Orkin Exterminating Company v. Foti
302 So. 2d 593 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1974)