GEORGIA NUNAMAKER, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Aero Kool Corp. v. Oosthuizen, 736 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
  …les personnel). Oosthuizen had no prior experience in this heavily regulated service industry, and as a result of Aero Kool’s training, received certification by the FAA. The trial court’s reliance on Austin v. Mid State Fire Equip. of Central Fla., 727 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), in finding that Aero Kool failed to prove a legitimate business interest, was misplaced. In Austin, the former employee had not received training or other specialized knowledge from the employer, had been in the industry for six…
• Edwards v. Harris, 964 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
  …nant may be unreasonable when it inflicts an unduly harsh or unnecessary result upon the employee. See Auto Club Affiliates, Inc. v. Donahey, 281 So. 2d 239, 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); see [*198] also Austin v. Mid State Fire Equip, of Cent Fla., Inc., 727 So. 2d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). In the instant case, the trial court upheld the covenant and enjoined the appellant from working with a competing employer in any capacity. There was no evidence that the appellee would be harmed simply by the appellant’s…
• The Univ. OF Fla. v. Salahattin M. Sanal, M.D., 837 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
  …constitute a “legitimate business interest” pursuant to section 542.335(l)(b)3, and that the [*516] court remanded for further proceedings as to one defendant consistent with that holding. Austin v. Mid State Fire Equipment of Central Florida, Inc., 727 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), and Anich Industries, Inc. v. Raney, 751 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), the two cases cited by Dr. Sanal, are, likewise, unhelpful. We can discern no ambiguity in the language of section 542.335(l)(b)3. It strikes us as relati…

Authorities Cited

• Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1979)