У нас вы можете посмотреть бесплатно Karpinski v. Ingrasci Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained или скачать в максимальном доступном качестве, видео которое было загружено на ютуб. Для загрузки выберите вариант из формы ниже:
Если кнопки скачивания не
загрузились
НАЖМИТЕ ЗДЕСЬ или обновите страницу
Если возникают проблемы со скачиванием видео, пожалуйста напишите в поддержку по адресу внизу
страницы.
Спасибо за использование сервиса ClipSaver.ru
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and counting) keyed to over 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Karpinski v. Ingrasci | 268 N.E.2d 751 (1971) A noncompete clause is an agreement, often found in employment contracts, prohibiting an employee from working in a similar field upon leaving employment. In Karpinski versus Ingrasci, the New York Court of Appeals had to decide whether to give teeth to a noncompete agreement between two oral surgeons. Dr. Joseph Karpinski worked as an oral surgeon in Cayuga County, New York. Many of his patients came from other counties and complained of having to travel so far to see him. Karpinski met Dr. Paul Ingrasci, a new surgeon, and reached an agreement for Ingrasci to live in Ithaca, in Tompkins County, and work for Karpinski for three years. The two men signed a contract containing a restrictive covenant prohibiting Ingrasci from ever practicing dentistry or oral surgery in the counties of Cayuga, Cortland, Seneca, Tompkins, or Ontario, except as an employee of Karpinski, or if Karpinski terminated the agreement. The contract also stated that Ingrasci would pay damages of forty thousand dollars if he were to violate the covenant. After Ingrasci’s term of employment expired, he couldn’t reach an agreement on continuing to work for Karpinski. Ingrasci opened his own oral surgery practice in Ithaca. Many dentists began referring patients to Ingrasci, rather than Karpinski. Karpinski sued Ingrasci for violating the covenant. The trial court granted Karpinski both damages and an injunction against Ingrasci practicing in the five listed counties. The appellate division reversed, finding the covenant too broad to be enforceable. Karpinski appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/karpins... The Quimbee App features over 20,000 case briefs keyed to over 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/karpins... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries