Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Orkin Exterminating Company v. Foti, 302 So. 2d 593.

41 citing documents.

Action Revenue Recovery, L.L.C. v. eBusiness Group, L.L.C. 17 So. 3d 999 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Nursing Enterprises, supra; Wyatt, supra.
Freeman v. MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC 15 So. 3d 385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
South East Auto Dea. Ren. v. Ez Rent to Own 980 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
4 Cir. 1992), and (La.App.
Advanced Products & Systems, Inc. v. Gary Simon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
Advance Products & Systems, Inc. v. Simon 944 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
SWAT 24 Shreveport Bossier, Inc. v. Bond 808 So. 2d 294 La. 2001
(citing Cloverland Dairy Products Co. v. Grace, 180 La.
TURNER PROFESSIONAL SERV. v. Broussard 762 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
[2] Cellular One, Inc. v. Boyd, 94-1783, p. 4 (La.App.
Boncosky Services, Inc. v. Lampo 751 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Nursing Enterprises, Inc. v. Marr 719 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
La. Smoked Products v. Savoie's Sausage 696 So. 2d 1373 La. 1997
this court resolved the conflict among the courts by adopting a restrictive interpretation of the statute, holding that an employer must incur "substantial expenses" in the training or in advertising the employee's connection with a business in order to enforce a noncompetition agreement with the employee.
Summit Institute v. Prouty 691 So. 2d 1384 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
In interpreting the 1989 amendment to the Statute, which eliminated the former statute's requirement on the employer for substantial expenditure in training or in special advertisement for the employee
Lsp, Inc. v. Savoie Sausage & Food Products, Inc. 673 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
United Group of National Paper Distributors, Inc. v. Vinson 666 So. 2d 1338 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
UNITED GROUP OF NATL. PAPER DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. Vinson 666 So. 2d 1338 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
AMCOM of Louisiana, Inc. v. Battson 666 So. 2d 1227 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Cellular One, Inc. v. Boyd, 94-1783 (La.App.
Walker v. Louisiana Health Management Co. 666 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Cellular One, Inc. v. Boyd 653 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Sentilles v. Kwik-Kopy Corp. 652 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
At the time Mr. Sentilles entered into the franchise agreement with Kwik-Kopy, the statute provided: No employer shall require or direct any employee to enter into any contract whereby the employee agrees not to engage in any competing business for himself, or as the employee of another, upon the termin
ALLIED BRUCE TERMINIX v. Ferrier 634 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
First Page v. Network Paging Corp. 628 So. 2d 130 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
Hawthorn, Waymouth & Carroll v. Johnson 611 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Neeb-Kearney and Co., Inc. v. Rellstab 593 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Diesel Driving Academy, Inc. v. Ferrier 563 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
LRS 23:921, before its 1989 amendment
Education for Living Seminars v. Leone 558 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
the Supreme Court interpreted the above statutory language as providing only a limited exception.
Maestri v. Destrehan Veterinary Hosp. 554 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Jon Bet & Associates v. Tyer 550 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Landry v. WILLIAM B. REILY & COMPANY, INC. 524 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
3 Cir.1973), aff'd National Motor Club of Louisiana, (La.
Matter of Arbitration Between Standard Coffee Service Co. and Preis 499 So. 2d 1314 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Chalmers Corp. v. Carnell 479 So. 2d 990 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
the Louisiana Supreme Court spoke about the two exceptions to our State's policy against non-competition agreements.
Daigle v. Standard Coffee Service Co. 479 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Pearce v. Austin 465 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Bugs Burger Bug Killers, Inc. v. GM KEISER 463 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
In this regard we are guided by our Louisiana Supreme Court in Orkin Exterminating *47 which states, in pertinent part: If an employer extensively advertises a particular employee as the man to go to for the employer's type of services, it is not unfair to protect the employer's investment in this particularized asset by authorizing a limited non-competition agreement to prevent the advertise
Sanborn v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc. 448 So. 2d 91 La. 1984
(emphasis provided) See also: wherein the Court noted that the basis of the public policy against noncompetition agreements "is the right of individual freedom and of individuals to better themselves in our free-enterprise society, where liberty of the individuals is guaranteed."
Winston v. Bourgeois, Bennett, Thokey and Hickey 432 So. 2d 936 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
Justice Tate, emphasized the basis for our strong public policy against non-compete agreements: The basic public policy of this state disfavors non-competition agreement[s] exacted of employees.
ADR v. Graves 374 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
the Supreme Court, interpreting the above statute, said: "In view of the fundamental policy of the basic statute, the apparent purpose of the 1962 amendment, as stated in Conque [National Motor Club of La., ], `is to protect an employer only where he has invested subst
Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Broussard 346 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
3 Cir. 1973), affirmed held that restrictive covenants are unenforceable unless they fit under the exception stated in the statute.
Target Rental Towel, Inc. v. Byrd 341 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
As to those in employee-employer status
Louisiana Office Systems, Inc. v. Boudreaux 309 So. 2d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Our Supreme Court granted a writ of review on October 28, 1974, La., , and remanded the case to the Court of Appeal for its review in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Orkin Exterminating Company v. Foti, La., (1974) and Weight Watchers of Louisiana, Inc. v. Ryals, La., (1974).
Gulf Toy House, Inc. v. Bertrand 306 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
decided October 28, 1974, the Supreme Court approved this circuit's interpretation of La.R.S.
Glazer Steel Corp. v. Espenan 306 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
The cases plaintiff cites are expressly overruled by Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Foti, La.1974, .
Weight Watchers of Louisiana, Inc. v. Ryals 302 So. 2d 598 La. 1974
1st Cir. 1973), certiorari granted, La., ) is identical to that decided by us this date in Orkin Exterminating Company v. Foti, La.App., .