Medical Specialists, Inc. v. Sleweon

21 Citing cases

  1. Glenn v. Dow AgroSciences, LLC

    861 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 3 times

    It must be reasonable in terms of time, geography, and types of activity prohibited. Id. at 933 (concluding that non-competition covenant was unreasonable because it went beyond scope of legitimate interest); see Raymundo v. Hammond Clinic Ass'n, 449 N.E.2d 276, 278 (Ind. 1983) (upholding agreement that restricted competitive activity in "the general service area of the Clinic" for two years); see Medical Specialists, Inc. v. Sleweon, 652 N.E.2d 517, 523-24 (Ind.Ct.App. 1997) (upholding agreement that restricted competitive activity for two-year period), trans. denied; see also Washel v. Bryant, 770 N.E.2d 902, 907-08 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002); cf. Dicen, 839 N.E.2d at 689 (finding that employment covenant restricting employee "from working in the land remediation business anywhere in the United States for two years after he left" employer "exceeds the bounds of reasonableness"); see Harvest, 492 N.E.2d at 690 (noting "established rule that in most instances a spatial restraint upon a former employee must be limited to the area of the employee's sales territory.").

  2. Harlan Labs., Inc. v. Campbell

    900 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D. Mass. 2012)   Cited 5 times   2 Legal Analyses

    The question of reasonableness is one for the courts and is to be determined on a case-by-case basis “by looking at all facts and circumstances surrounding the case.” Med. Specialists, Inc. v. Sleweon, 652 N.E.2d 517, 522 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). See also Bridgestone/Firestone v. Lockhart, 5 F.Supp.2d 667, 683 (S.D.Ind.1998) (determinations of reasonableness “must be made on a case-by-case basis....”).

  3. Mercho-Roushdi-Shoemaker v. Blatchford

    900 N.E.2d 786 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 4 times
    In Blatchford, multiple doctors testified that, due to a limited number of surgeons in the area, if the non-compete was enforced, patients might not be able to receive emergency surgery in a timely manner.

    In considering what is reasonable, regard must be paid to three factors: (1) whether the agreement is wider than necessary for the protection of the employer in some legitimate interest; (2) the effect of the agreement upon the employee; and (3) the effect of the agreement upon the public. See Medical Specialists, Inc. v. Sleweon, 652 N.E.2d 517, 522 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied.

  4. Sharvelle v. Magnante

    836 N.E.2d 432 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that a covenant's prohibition on a physician from practicing "health care of every nature and kind" was unreasonable where the physician had been employed to practice in the specialty of ophthalmology

    The continued success of the practice, which is dependent upon patient referrals, is a legitimate interest worthy of protection. See Medical Specialists, Inc. v. Sleweon, 652 N.E.2d 517, 523 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995), trans. denied.

  5. Product Action International, Inc. v. Mero

    277 F. Supp. 2d 919 (S.D. Ind. 2003)   Cited 15 times
    Predicting Indiana Supreme Court would not apply provision in covenant stating that if any part of the covenant were too broad to permit enforcement to its fullest extent, the restriction should be enforced to maximum extent permitted by law and court should have power to modify the covenant to conform it to law

    "In considering what is reasonable, regard must be paid to: (a) the question whether the promise is wider than is necessary for the protection of the covenantee in some legitimate interest; (b) the effect of the promise upon the covenantor; and (c) the effect upon the public." Medical Specialists, Inc. v. Sleweon, 652 N.E.2d 517, 522 (Ind.App. 1995), citing Donahue, 127 N.E.2d at 239. Under Indiana law, whether the covenant not to compete is reasonable is a question of law for the court to decide.

  6. Sleweon v. Burke, Murphy, Constanza Cuppy

    712 N.E.2d 517 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses

    This court, however, denied Burke's motion. In Medical Specialists, Inc. v. Sleweon, 652 N.E.2d 517 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), trans. denied, (" Sleweon I"), we noted that because Dr. Sleweon had failed to timely file an appellee's brief, we could reverse the trial court if Medical Specialists presented a prima facie case of error. Id. at 522, n. 4. However, we decided to exercise our discretion and decide the case on the merits.

  7. Dearborn v. Everett J. Prescott, Inc. (S.D.Ind. 2007)

    486 F. Supp. 2d 802 (S.D. Ind. 2007)   Cited 11 times
    In Dearborn, the court's enforcement of the parties' choice of law in deciding the merits would have given effect to sweeping, anti-competitive covenants.

    Under Indiana law, in the absence of genuine trade secrets that would be useful far beyond the scope of the employee's own responsibilities, geographic and customer restrictions on a departing salesman must ordinarily be no broader than the scope of the employee's former responsibilities. E.g., Donahue v. Permacel Tape Corp., 127 N.E.2d 235, 241 (Ind. 1955); Vukovich v. Coleman, 789 N.E.2d 520, 525 (Ind.App. 2003); Medical Specialists v. Sleweon, 652 N.E.2d 517, 523-24 (Ind.App. 1995); Standard Register Co. v. Cleaver, 30 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1096-97 (N.D. Ind. 1998); Norlund v. Faust, 675 N.E.2d 1142, 1155 (Ind.App. 1997) ("The use of territorial boundaries is only one method of limiting a covenant's scope, and when a covenant not to compete contains a restraint which clearly defines a class of persons with whom contact is prohibited, the need for a geographical restraint is decreased."), citing Field v. Alexander Alexander, 503 N.E.2d 627, 635 (Ind.App. 1987), and Seach v. Richards, Dieterle Co., 439 N.E.2d 208, 213 (Ind.App. 1982); Commercial Bankers Life Ins. Co. of America v. Smith, 516 N.E.2d 110, 114 (Ind.App. 1987) (finding a distinction "between the area in which the employee actually works and the area which comprises the full extent of the Company's business").

  8. Credentials Plus, LLC v. Calderone

    230 F. Supp. 2d 890 (N.D. Ind. 2002)   Cited 19 times
    Finding computer used to send and receive e-mail to customers throughout the country qualified as a protected computer

    In determining the reasonableness of non-compete restrictions, this Court must look to: (a) whether the restrictions are wider than necessary for the protection of the covenantee; (b) the effect of the promise upon the covenantor; and (c) the effect upon the public. Id. (citing Medical Specialists, Inc. v. Sleweon, 652 N.E.2d 517, 522 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995)). Specifically, this Court must consider the scope of the employer's legitimate business interests and the geographic and temporal limits required by the covenant.

  9. Intermountain Eye v. Miller

    142 Idaho 218 (Idaho 2005)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "a prohibition on providing services other than those provided by [plaintiff] exceeds the scope of any legitimate business interest"

    And medical services firms, particularly those providing specialized care, generally have protectable interests in referral sources. Valley Med. Specialists v. Farber, 194 Ariz. 363, 982 P.2d 1277, 1284 (1999) (citing Medical Specialists, Inc. v. Sleweon, 652 N.E.2d 517, 523 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995)); Weber v. Tillman, 259 Kan. 457, 913 P.2d 84, 91 (1996); Ballesteros v. Johnson, 812 S.W.2d 217, 223 (Mo.Ct.App. 1991). An employer also has "a protectable interest in the customer relationships its former employee established and/or nurtured while employed by the employer and is entitled to protect itself from the risk that a former employee might appropriate customers by taking unfair advantage of the contacts developed while working for the employer."

  10. Idbeis v. Wichita Surgical Specialists, P.A

    279 Kan. 755 (Kan. 2005)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that unquantifiable consideration, such as an employee's goodwill and professional contacts, is adequate to sustain a contract

    The other business interest cited by the trial court as a legitimate interest for protection through a restrictive covenant was preservation of a referral base. Plaintiffs urge this court to conclude that WSS did not have a legitimate interest in referral sources. Both sides cite cases from other jurisdictions which they claim are persuasive. For example, defendant WSS cites Medical Specialists, Inc. v. Sleweon, 652 N.E.2d 517 (Ind.App. 1995), a case upholding a restrictive covenant on the ground that the continued success of an infectious disease practice, which was dependent upon patient referrals from other doctors, was a legitimate interest worthy of protection. We also note a recent decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court, which has decided many of the leading physician restrictive covenant cases, in which the court reaffirmed that legitimate business interests for a hospital to protect with a post-employment restrictive covenant with a doctor include: "(1) protecting confidential business information, including patient lists; (2) protecting patient and patient referral bases; and (3) protecting investment in the training of a physician."