Warning

Info

🏅 UnreasonableWoman, SLS '24 |

0 0

Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP

44 Cal. 4th 339 (2008)

tl;dr: Plaintiff was a CPA for Defendant company, but then received an offer for a different job while he was under an 18-month non-compete. Defendant enforced the non-compete and the other company retracted their offer.

IRACIssue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

Facts & Holding

Facts:Plaintiff Edwards was a CPA for Defendant company. Part of...

Holding:Affirmed. The clause not to compete is invalid under Cal....

Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP

Chat for Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP
brief-200
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you