Knowles Broadcasting Co. v. Oreto

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Knowles Broadcasting Co. v. Oreto

322 N.E.2d 791, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 707, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 711

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedFebruary 11, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 322 N.E.2d 791 (Knowles Broadcasting Co. v. Oreto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

322 N.E.2d 791, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 707, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knowles-broadcasting-co-v-oreto-massappct-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack