Orkin Exterminating Co. of Raleigh, Inc. v. Griffin
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- United Laboratories, Inc. v. Kuykendall (N.C. Ct. App. 1987)
- Brooks Distributing Co., Inc. v. Pugh (N.C. Ct. App. 1988)
- A.E.P. Industries, Inc. v. McClure (N.C. 1983)
- Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. v. Weaver (Ark. 1975)
- Clinical Staffing, Inc. v. Worldwide Travel Staffing Ltd. (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 2013)
- Hejl v. Hood, Hargett & Associates, Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 2009)
- Sentilles Optical Services v. Phillips (La. Ct. App. 1995)
- Triangle Leasing Co., Inc. v. McMahon (N.C. 1990)
- Triangle Leasing Co. v. McMahon (N.C. 1990)
- Starkings Court Reporting Services, Inc. v. Collins (N.C. Ct. App. 1984)
- Forrest Paschal Machinery Co. v. Milholen (N.C. Ct. App. 1975)
- Safety Equipment Sales & Service, Inc. v. Williams (N.C. Ct. App. 1974)
- Wilmar, Inc. v. Corsillo (N.C. Ct. App. 1974)
- Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. v. Wilson (Tex. App. 1973)
- Wilmar, Incorporated v. Liles (N.C. Ct. App. 1971)
- U-Haul Company of North Carolina, Inc. v. Jones (N.C. 1967)
- Hooks v. INTERNATIONAL SPEEDWAYS, INCORPARTED (N.C. 1965)
- James C. Greene Company v. Kelley (N.C. 1964)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Each defendant makes only one assignment of error. It raises the question whether the -court below erred in continuing the temporary restraining order until the final determination of the action on its merits.
The judge was not requested to find the facts upon which he continued the temporary restraining order and he made none. However, it is presumed for the purpose of his order that he found facts sufficient to support it. Hall v. Coach Co. et. al., 224 N.C. 781, 32 S.E. 2d 325; *181 Edmonds v. Hall, 236 N.C. 153, 72 S.E. 2d 221; Strong, N.C. Index, Injunctions, Sec. 13.
The affidavits disclose that defendants in the course of their employment had acquired knowledge which would give them an unfair advantage over plaintiff in a competitive business. Under such circumstances equity will enforce a covenant not to compete if it is: “(1) in writing, (2) entered into at the time and as a part of the contract of employment, (3) based on valuable considerations, (4) reasonable both as to time and territory embraced in the restrictions (5) fair to the parties, and (6) not against public policy.” Asheville Associates v. Miller and Asheville Associates v. Berman, 255 N.C. 400, 121 S.E. 2d 593. Exterminating Co. v. Wilson, 227 N.C. 96, 40 S.E. 2d 696; G.S. 75-4.
The plaintiff in this case made out a 'prima facie showing of right to the final injunctive relief it demanded. When this is done the court will ordinarily continue a temporary restraining order if, in its opinion, it is reasonably necessary to protect the plaintiff’s rights until the controversy can be finally determined. On this record, we think the plaintiff was entitled to have the temporary restraining order continued as ordered by Judge Paul. Studios v. Goldston, 249 N.C. 117, 105 S.E. 2d 277.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.