Compass Bank v. Hartley
United States District Court for the District of Arizona
430 F. Supp. 2d 973 (2006)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Hartley signed a noncompetition agreement with Compass Bank. The agreement included certain step-down provisions contemplating potential revisions to Hartley’s commitments under the agreement if a court found the duration and geographic scope of the commitment to be unreasonable. The step-down provisions called for a duration of 1–2 years and a geographic scope of 25–50 miles for Hartley’s noncompetition commitment. The parties disputed the enforceability of the step-down provisions.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Silver, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.