Milwaukee Linen Supply Co. v. Ring
Wisconsin Supreme Court
246 N.W. 567 (1933)
- Written by Tom Syverson, JD
Facts
Ring (defendant) worked as a linen deliveryman for Milwaukee Linen Supply Co. (Milwaukee Linen) (plaintiff). In 1930, Milwaukee Linen promoted Ring and gave Ring a raise. Ring signed a non-compete agreement stating that he would not solicit or divert customers from Milwaukee Linen for two years after he left Milwaukee Linen. The parties’ employment contract was at will. In 1932, Milwaukee Linen fired Ring, and Ring could not find acceptable employment outside of the linen business. Part of Ring’s difficulty in finding new work stemmed from Ring’s physical disability. Ring went to work for one of Milwaukee Linen’s competitors as a driver. The trial court found that the non-compete agreement was not reasonably necessary for Milwaukee Linen’s business and was unduly harmful to Ring. The trial court denied injunctive relief to Milwaukee Linen and entered judgment in Ring’s favor.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fowler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 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.
