ExecutiveLoyalty.org

Mississippi Law

2015.07.30  Blog Summarizes MS Law and Seminal Decision.  See this blog for discussion that begins with the following heads-up quoted here from the blog:​

• The Mississippi Supreme Court “has stated that restrictive covenants are in restraint of trade and individual freedom and are not favorites of the law…” Cain v. Cain, 967 So.2d 654 (Miss.Ct.App. 2007). Given the fact that such agreements are “not favorites,” they must be “strictly interpreted” and the company seeking to enforce a non-compete “bears the burden to prove that the restriction is reasonable in light of the economic interest sought to be protected.” Id.    
  

2011   Noncompetition Agreement Upheld -- "Since we find that a nationwide geographic restriction would have reasonably protected Timber Lake’s interests, we cannot say that Timber Lake’s effort to balance [the defendant’s] interest by reducing that restriction to within a 250-mile radius of Tupelo was unreasonable." (Timber Lake Foods Inc. v. Stephanie Estess, case number 2009-CA-000980, MS Court of Appeals, 2011.3.9)