Hopper v. All Pet Animal Clinic – Case Brief

Posted by LawRiotAdmin on March 16th, 2010

Contracts

Brief

Hopper v. All Pet Animal Clinic

Procedural History:

Trial Court granted injunction but felt the damages were too speculative to be allowed.
Appealed.
Remanded for a modification of the judgment.

Facts:

Hopper worked at All Pet Animal Clinic for three years following school.
She and her employer executed a contract effective March of 1989 with a non-compete agreement.
- Agreement:
  - Agreement may be terminated by either party within 30 days.
  - Upon termination, Hopper agrees that she will not practice small animal medicine for 3 years within 5 miles of the corporate limits of Laramie, Wyoming.
The president of All Pet later heard a rumor that Hopper may be purchasing a competing animal clinic and when approached, Hopper said she could do whatever she wanted.
She was fired.
In July 1991, having purchased the other practice.
November 1991, All Pet sued.
More than half of Hoppers gross income was derived from small-animal practice, and there was a strong overlap of clientele.

Issue:

Holding:

Reasoning:

Two troublesome principles come to light in non-compete cases.
- Freedom to contract
- Freedom to work.
The court recognizes that an employer may protect against improper and unfair competition of a former employee but not against ordinary competition.
The court evaluates the reasonableness.
- A restraint is reasonable if:
  - It is no greater than is required for the protection of the employer.
  - Does not impose undue hardship on the employee
  - Is not injurious to the public.
The court does not feel the restraints on Hopper create an unreasonable restraint on trade.
Hopper was still able to earn a living.
The public will not suffer injury from the enforcement of the covenant.
Although, the duration should be reasonably related to the interest the employer is seeking to protect.
Three years is too long in an industry where technology is constantly changing.
1 year is more reasonable.