Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Leroy T. Blalock v. Perfect Subscription Company, a Corporation

Leroy T. Blalock v. Perfect Subscription Co., a Corp., 599 F.2d 743 (5th Cir. 1979)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1979-07-30
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The issue before us in this diversity case is whether the district court correctly decid *744 ed that the anticompetition covenant in the parties’ contract was unenforceable against the appellee because it violated a public policy of Alabama. We conclude that the holding of the district court was correct for the reasons stated in Judge Hand’s well-reasoned opinion. 458 F.Supp. 123 (S.D.Ala.1978). 1 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment below. AFFIRMED. 1 . The appellant claims that our decision in Wilkinson v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Leroy T. Blalock v. Perfect Subscription Company, a Corporation. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
3 opinions
BLALOCK v. PERFECT SUBSCRIPTION COMPANY,599 F.2d 743(5th Cir. 1979)
LEROY T. BLALOCK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. PERFECT SUBSCRIPTION COMPANY, A
CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 78-3219.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 30, 1979.
David A. Bagwell, Patrick Sims, Mobile, Ala., for defendant-appellant.

Thomas W. Underwood, Jr., Foley, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama; William Brevard Hand, Judge.
Before GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
[1] The issue before us in this diversity case is whether the district court correctly decidedPage 744that the anticompetition covenant in the parties' contract was unenforceable against the appellee because it violated a public policy of Alabama. We conclude that the holding of the district court was correct for the reasons stated in Judge Hand's well-reasoned opinion.458 F. Supp. 123(S.D. Ala. 1978).1Accordingly, we affirm the judgment below.

[2] AFFIRMED.Page 1324
  1. The appellant claims that our decision inWilkinson v.Manpower, Inc.,531 F.2d 712(5th Cir. 1976) shows that the district court erred in concluding that enforcement of the restrictive covenant would violate a fundamental public policy of Alabama. The short answer to this argument is thatWilkinsonis inapposite.Wilkinsonconcerned the public policy ofFloridawith respect to its enforcement of restrictive covenants, and the fact that Florida and Alabama have very similar statutes dealing with restrictive covenants,compareAla. Code § 8-1-1withFla.Stat. § 542.12, does not necessarily mean that they have the same public policy on this issue. Moreover, our review of Alabama cases convinces us that Alabama's statute on restrictive covenants, Ala. Code § 8-1-1, embodies a fundamental public policy of the state and that the enforcement of this restrictive covenant would violate that policy.See Robinson v. ComputerServicenters, Inc.,346 So.2d 940,943(Ala. 1977);Gant v.Warr,286 Ala. 387,240 So.2d 353,355(1970);Hill v. Rice,259 Ala. 587,67 So.2d 789,793(1953). ↩