Robertson v. A.I.G. Agency

Missouri Court of Appeals

Robertson v. A.I.G. Agency

878 S.W.2d 928, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1149, 1994 WL 328342

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided July 12, 1994·No. No. 64009·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Employee appeals from the trial court’s decree granting employer, A.I.G. Agency, [929]*929Inc., an injunction based upon a noncompetition clause contained in a contract between employee and employer. We affirm. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Employee appeals from the trial court’s decree granting employer, A.I.G. Agency, [929]*929Inc., an injunction based upon a noncompetition clause contained in a contract between employee and employer. We affirm. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Robertson v. A.I.G. Agency, 878 S.W.2d 928, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1149, 1994 WL 328342 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

878 S.W.2d 928 (Robertson v. A.I.G. Agency) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.