Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bryceland v. Northey, 772 P.2d 36.

26 citing documents.

Arborcraft v. Arizona Urban Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Arborcraft v. Arizona Urban Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See, e.g., Hilb, Rogal & (noting a noncompete agreement protecting an employer’s legitimate business interest is enforceable); –17 (App. 1989) (noting employers may protect their interest in customer relationships by using noncompete agreements); Amex Distrib.
Electronic Payment v. Kennedy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Electronic Payment v. Kennedy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Saxton v. Berkner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Saxton v. Berkner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
We give preference to an interpretation that gives “a reasonable meaning to the manifested intent of the parties rather than an interpretation that would render the contract unreasonable.”
Shufeldt v. Nextcare Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shufeldt v. Nextcare Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Farber, 194 Ariz. at 365 ¶ 11 (“‘Each case hinges on its own particular facts.’”) (); see also id.
Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC v. Noder 314 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC v. Noder 314 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 188, comment b (1981)).
Fearnow v. Ridenour, Swenson, Cleere & Evans, P.C. 138 P.3d 723 Ariz. 2006
Fearnow v. Ridenour, Swenson, Cleere & Evans, P.C. 138 P.3d 723 Ariz. 2006
“Each case hinges on its own particular facts.”
Bed Mart, Inc. v. Kelley 45 P.3d 1219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Bed Mart, Inc. v. Kelley 45 P.3d 1219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
149-50 ¶¶ 18-21, -70 (App.1999)(recognizing that company’s internal economic records, like profit-and-loss figures and sales revenue, may constitute protectable trade secrets that competitor could use to advantage in pricing and sales decisions); , (noting employer’s legitimate interest in restraining former employee’s employment that entails use of valuable trade information and confidential information obtained in prior job).
Enterprise Leasing Co. of Phoenix v. Ehmke 3 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Enterprise Leasing Co. of Phoenix v. Ehmke 3 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
1879 ; see also PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262, 1268 (7th Cir.1995)
Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber 982 P.2d 1277 Ariz. 1999
Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber 982 P.2d 1277 Ariz. 1999
(“Each ease hinges on its own particular facts.”); Olliver/Pilcher Ins.
Gfeller v. Scottsdale Vista North Townhomes Ass'n 969 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Gfeller v. Scottsdale Vista North Townhomes Ass'n 969 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber 950 P.2d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber 950 P.2d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co. of Arizona, Inc. v. McKinney 946 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co. of Arizona, Inc. v. McKinney 946 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Phoenix Orthopaedic Surgeons, Ltd. v. Peairs 790 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Phoenix Orthopaedic Surgeons, Ltd. v. Peairs 790 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Division One of this court stated: An employer does have a protectable interest in maintaining customer relationships when an employee leaves.