Nevada Supreme Court Rules on Noncompete Agreements natlawreview.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from natlawreview.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
As we have previously blogged about, in 2016 the Nevada
Supreme Court refused to adopt the blue pencil doctrine
and held that Nevada courts could not modify over-broad restrictive
covenants. The following year, we alerted readers that the Nevada
legislature amended Nevada Revised Statute 613, governing
non-competition agreements. Among other things, the amendment
granted courts the authority to blue-pencil
non-competition agreements, overturning the Nevada Supreme
Court s 2016 decision in
Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc.
v. Islam.
Now, the Nevada Supreme Court chimed in again on the blue
As we have
previously blogged about, in 2016 the Nevada Supreme Court refused to adopt the “blue pencil” doctrine and held that Nevada courts could not modify over-broad restrictive covenants. The following year, we alerted readers that the Nevada legislature amended Nevada Revised Statute 613, governing non-competition agreements. Among other things, the amendment granted courts the authority to “blue-pencil” non-competition agreements, overturning the Nevada Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in
Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc. v. Islam.
Now, the Nevada Supreme Court chimed in again on the “blue pencil” doctrine. In
Duong v. Fielden Hanson Isaacs Miyada Robison Yeh, Ltd., two doctors signed noncompetition agreements in 2016 in exchange for continued employment subsequent to a merger. The agreements prohibited the doctors from working at certain facilities upon termination of their employment relationship. The agreements notably contained an express blue-penciling provisi
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The Nevada Supreme Court recently addressed the question of whether lower courts may blue-pencil an otherwise unenforceable noncompetition agreement pursuant to a provision in the agreement that allows for court modification to redeem unreasonably restrictive clauses. The court’s decision is instructive not only for Nevada employers but for all businesses that operate in states with similar statutory structures.
Brief History and Background
The question of whether Nevada courts could judicially modify an overbroad noncompetition agreement was seemingly answered in the negative by the Nevada Supreme Court in 2016 (