In Wilson v. Delaney, 137 Iowa 636, 641, 113 N.W. 842, 844, we said the prohibition in the restriction was violated "* * * when the scope and character of the employment is such as to result in all likelihood in substantial interference with the business which was the subject of the contract.
Summary of this case from Orkin Exterminating Co. v. BurnettA159847 A159848
12-14-2016
State v. Wilson, Matthew Delaney
Affirmed without opinion.
In Wilson v. Delaney, 137 Iowa 636, 641, 113 N.W. 842, 844, we said the prohibition in the restriction was violated "* * * when the scope and character of the employment is such as to result in all likelihood in substantial interference with the business which was the subject of the contract.
Summary of this case from Orkin Exterminating Co. v. BurnettIn Wilson v. Delaney, 137 Iowa 636, 640, 113 N.W. 842, we held dealings of a livestock dealer were "equally potent as far as plaintiff was concerned whether he was doing this for pleasure as a favor merely to Hogan, or for the purposes of personal gain."
Summary of this case from Uptown Food Store, Inc., v. GinsbergIn Wilson v. Delaney, 137 Iowa 636, we said that parol evidence is admissible to explain all the technical terms and phrases used in a local or specific sense.
Summary of this case from Des Moines Plumbing & Heating Co. v. MagarianFull title:State v. Wilson, Matthew Delaney
Court:Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Date published: Dec 14, 2016
However it is not necessary to go that far. In Wilson v. Delaney, 137 Iowa 636, 640, 113 N.W. 842, we held…
Orkin Exterminating Co. v. BurnettThe writ is worded in the language of the restrictive covenant and cases which have determined what conduct…