Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp.

793 S.W.2d 670 (1990)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp.

Texas Supreme Court

793 S.W.2d 670 (1990)


Wackenhut Corporation (Wackenhut) (plaintiff) was a security-guard provider based in Florida. Wackenhut hired Edward DeSantis (defendant) to manage its Houston office. At that time, DeSantis signed a noncompetition agreement prohibiting him for competing with Wackenhut within a 40-county area for two years after his employment at Wackenhut ended. Additionally, the noncompetition agreement prohibited DeSantis from disclosing Wackenhut’s client list, or any confidential or proprietary information that DeSantis had acquired while a Wackenhut employee. Approximately three years later, DeSantis resigned from Wackenhut. DeSantis immediately created a company called Risk Deterrence, Inc. (RDI). RDI provided security consulting and security guards. DeSantis sent letters to several businesses notifying them of his new work with RDI. Approximately half of these letters went to Wackenhut clients with whom DeSantis had worked. The letters included a statement that DeSantis did not intend to interfere with any existing Wackenhut clients. Six months later, one of Wackenhut’s clients terminated its contract with Wackenhut and signed a contract with DeSantis. Another current Wackenhut client planned to do the same. Wackenhut sued DeSantis and RDI, seeking to enjoin them from violating DeSantis’s noncompetition agreement with Wackenhut and seeking damages. DeSantis and RDI filed counterclaims against Wackenhut for, among other things, fraudulent inducement to sign the noncompetition agreement. At trial, there was evidence that the Wackenhut clients who moved or planned to move to RDI were dissatisfied with Wackenhut’s services. There was no evidence that DeSantis developed business goodwill for Wackenhut. Wackenhut failed to show that it had proprietary pricing policies or bidding strategies, or that its customers and their needs could be identified only by someone in Wackenhut’s employ. A jury found that DeSantis had breached his noncompetition agreement with Wackenhut, and the trial court permanently enjoined DeSantis from competing with Wackenhut. However, the trial court narrowed the geographical scope of the covenant from 40 counties to 13. The court of appeals affirmed. The state supreme court granted certiorari to determine whether the noncompetition agreement was enforceable.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Hecht, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 606,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 606,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 606,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership