Skip to main content

Enforcement of Restrictive Covenant, and Criminal and Immigration Matters

By FindLaw Staff on August 15, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C. v. Barton, No. 09-2061, involved an action seeking to enforce restrictive covenants against former employees of an accounting firm.  The court affirmed summary judgment for plaintiff on the grounds that 1) the restrictive covenants were not unenforceable for lack of consideration; 2) the Missouri Supreme Court would hold that a stockholder's agreement between a professional corporation and a shareholder falls within the class of contracts wherein restrictive covenants are appropriate; and 3) the covenant at issue was reasonable.

Pafe v. Holder, No. 09-3466, concerned a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen her case.  The court denied the petition, holding that even assuming the time limit was generally subject to equitable tolling, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen.

In US v. Orozco-Osbaldo, No. 09-2802, the court affirmed defendant's convictions for conspiracy to possess and distribute at least 50 grams of methamphetamine, four counts of distribution of methamphetamine, and forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 85, holding that 1) the district court properly excluded the period during which it considered the pretrial motion for joinder under the Speedy Trial Act; 2) the district court had a sufficient factual basis to accept his guilty plea as to the conspiracy count; and 3) the district court did not improperly consider or rely upon any unrecorded proceedings.

Wetherill v. Geren, No. 09-3334, involved a Title VII action brought against National Guard officials.  The court affirmed the dismissal of the action on the ground that the Feres doctrine, which generally bars judicial review of military decision-making, precluded the court from hearing a Title VII suit brought by a "dual-status" National Guard technician, whose position was both military and civilian in nature.

In re: Fitzgerald Marine & Repair, No. 09-1997, involved a defendant's appeal in a personal injury action from summary judgment to a third-party defendant on defendant's cross-claim for contractual indemnity, denial of summary judgment to defendant on third-party defendant's common law indemnity and contribution claims, and an award of attorney's fees and costs to the third-party defendant, the court affirmed on the grounds that 1) the contract at issue was not ambiguous; 2) the clause at issue required defendant to indemnify third-party defendant for all injuries to defendant's employees that arose in connection with a 2001 Service Agreement; and 3) there was no error of law in the district court's award of the entire nonsegregated category to third-party defendant.

In Jackson v. Norris, No. 09-1229, a capital habeas matter, the court vacated summary judgment for respondent, holding that  petitioner made a sufficient showing to entitle him to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether he was mentally retarded and, therefore, his execution would violate the Eighth Amendment under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).

Related Resources

Copied to clipboard