Knowles Broadcasting Co. v. Oreto

322 N.E.2d 791, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 707, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 711
Massachusetts Appeals Court·Decided February 11, 1975·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The plaintiffs appeal from a decree of the Superior Court dismissing their bill in equity against a former employee to enforce a covenant not to compete. The appeal must fail because of the trial judge’s express findings, which were not plainly wrong (Richmond Bros. Inc. v. Westinghouse Bdcst. Co. Inc. 357 Mass. 106, 109 [1970]; All Stainless Inc. v. Colby, 364 Mass. 773, 776 [1974]), that various factors usually considered grounds for enforcing such a covenant were not present (see Richmond Bros. Inc. v. Westinghouse Bdcst. Co. Inc., supra, at 110; National Hearing Aid Centers, Inc. v. Avers, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 285, 289-290 [1974]) and because of the absence of any finding (or any compelling basis for a finding) that enforcement of the [708]*708covenant would protect the former employer from anything other than ordinary competition. See Richmond Bros. Inc. v. Westinghouse Bdcst. Co. Inc., supra, at 111; All Stainless, Inc. v. Colby, supra, at 779-780; Marine Contractors Co. Inc. v. Hurley, 365 Mass. 280, 287-288 (1974); National Hearing Aid Centers, Inc. v. Avers, supra, at 289.

John M. Griffin for the plaintiffs. Mel L. Greenberg for the defendant.

Decree affirmed.

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

Knowles Broadcasting Co. v. Oreto, 322 N.E.2d 791, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 707, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 711 (Mass. Ct. App. 1975).

322 N.E.2d 791 (Knowles Broadcasting Co. v. Oreto) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McFarland v. Schneider
11 Mass. L. Rptr. 704 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 1998)