Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2012

PULSE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. Notaro

PULSE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. Notaro
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Decided January 27, 2012 · Per Curiam
36 A.3d 1096; 614 Pa. 318 (Atlantic Reporter, Third Series)

PULSE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. Notaro

Opinion

AMENDED ORDER PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 27th day of January, 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Does a Court act improperly by refusing to enforce a restrictive covenant contained in an employment agreement solely because the restrictive covenant was not expressly referenced in a non-binding initial offer letter, and the offer letter conditioned employment on the execution of the employment agreement?

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.