In Papa John's International, Inc. v. Rezko et al., 2006 WL 1697134 (N.D. Ill.), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois was called upon to determine whether a post-term covenant not-to-compete was reasonable in scope.
District Court Interprets Kentucky Franchise Covenants Not-to-Compete
In <i>Papa John's International, Inc. v. Rezko et al.</i>, 2006 WL 1697134 (N.D. Ill.), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois was called upon to determine whether a post-term covenant not-to-compete was reasonable in scope. The defendant alleged that the covenant would bar him from the restaurant business nearly everywhere in the country. In the limited procedural posture of the case (a motion to dismiss), the court allowed the claim of unreasonableness to go forward.
By
Jon SwierzewskiThis premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
