PULSE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. Notaro

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

PULSE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. Notaro

36 A.3d 1096, 614 Pa. 318

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in PULSE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. Notaro. Read the opinion of the Court — 620 Pa. 322 →

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 27, 2012·No. 626 MAL 2011·Published

Opinion

AMENDED ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 27th day of January, 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Does a Court act improperly by refusing to enforce a restrictive covenant contained in an employment agreement solely because the restrictive covenant was not expressly referenced in a non-binding initial offer letter, and the offer letter conditioned employment on the execution of the employment agreement?

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

AMENDED ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 27th day of January, 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Does a Court act improperly by refusing to enforce a restrictive covenant contained in an employment agreement solely because the restrictive covenant was not expressly referenced in a non-binding initial offer letter, and the offer letter conditioned employment on the execution of the employment agreement?

PULSE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. Notaro, 36 A.3d 1096, 614 Pa. 318 (Pa. 2012).

Pincite

36 A.3d 1096 (PULSE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. Notaro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.