E.W. Smith Agency, Inc., v. Sanger

3 Citing cases

  1. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Ran

    67 F. Supp. 2d 764 (E.D. Mich. 1999)   Cited 31 times
    Finding that brokerage firm's list of client names, phone numbers, and other confidential information was entitled to protection as a trade secret under MUTSA

    Ran, on the other hand, contends that the clause he agreed to amounts to an unenforceable non-compete provision. Ran relies primarily on E.W. Smith Agency, Inc. v. Sanger, 350 Mich. 75, 85 N.W.2d 84 (1957). Sanger involved a non-compete agreement whereby an insurance underwriter agreed not to engage in the same or similar line of business in Wayne County for a period of three years after leaving the employ of the plaintiff, which the Michigan Supreme Court ruled was an unenforceable promise under Michigan law pursuant to ยง 445.761.

  2. Columbus Services v. Preferred Bldg. Maintenance

    270 F. Supp. 875 (W.D. Mich. 1967)   Cited 1 times

    Therefore, the transfer would not be for a valuable consideration as required by M.S.A. 28.66. In E.W. Smith Agency, Inc. v. Sanger, 350 Mich. 75, 85 N.W.2d 84 (1957), the Michigan Supreme Court unanimously refused to enforce a restrictive covenant which would have prohibited the defendant, an insurance salesman, from competing with plaintiff insurance agency, his former employer. To avoid the effect of M.S.A. 28.61, plaintiff argued that M.S.A. 28.66 was controlling because of a provision in the employment contract which gave plaintiff the right to purchase the defendant's rights in expiration, renewal and prospect records arising from insurance sold by him during his employment.

  3. In re Dynamic Enterprises, Inc.

    32 B.R. 509 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1983)   Cited 14 times
    In Dynamic Enterprises, Inc. v. Fitness World of Jackson, 32 B.R. 509 (Bankr. M.D.Tenn. 1983), the court interpreted Michigan law when determining whether or not a franchisee had a right to rescind a franchise agreement.

    Michigan case law also evidences public policy against covenants not to compete. See Muma v. Financial Guardian, Inc., 551 F. Supp. 119, 122 (E.D.Mich. 1982); E.W. Smith Agency, Inc. v. Sanger, 350 Mich. 75, 85 N.W.2d 84, 86 (1957). Michigan law, however, makes a distinction between contracts which impose restrictions during performance of the contract and restrictions which extend beyond the expiration of the contract term.