Central Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Ingram
Tennessee Supreme Court
678 S.W.2d 28 (1984)
Facts
Central Adjustment Bureau (CAB) (plaintiff) was a debt-collection agency with offices throughout the country, including in Tennessee. CAB required its employees to sign noncompete agreements providing that during employment and for two years following termination of employment, employees were prohibited from (1) engaging in the collections business anywhere in the United States, (2) divulging or using any confidential business information of CAB, or (3) contacting clients or customers of CAB. Henry Ingram, a regional manager for CAB, along with a salesperson and a debt collector (the employees) (defendants) were employed in the Tennessee and Kentucky areas and were required to sign the noncompete agreement after a few days of beginning employment. The employees remained employed for between two and seven years, resigned in early 1979, and opened their own debt-collection agency located in Tennessee and Kentucky in March 1979. The new agency was able to attract CAB clients using CAB’s competitive information and goodwill. CAB filed suit against the employees seeking compensatory and injunctive relief. The lower court held that the noncompete agreement was unreasonably broad and enforced it to the extent reasonable. An appeal followed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Drowota, J.)
Dissent (Brock, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 705,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,300 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
