Blog

Texas non-compete cases that predate the statute have principles that are still relevant today.

This week I’m excited to have a guest post from Craig Huggart. Craig liked my post I’ll Sleep When I’m Dead: The Ignored Epidemic in the Legal Profession and asked if he could contribute something on the topic of sleep. Here are his helpful tips about getting better sleep on the road. – Zach Do you sometimes struggle to sleep well in hotels? Me too! However, after more than 600 nights on the road, I found two key things that make it easier to get a good night’s rest on the road – picking the right room and optimizing it […]

What will motivate your team to succeed? Past failures? Sporting goods commercials? Find out at my blog post.

“Hearsay” has been in the news a lot lately. But what is hearsay? And what does it have to do with “direct knowledge”?

The right question is not “should Texas follow the inevitable disclosure doctrine?” but rather “what evidence is sufficient to establish imminent harm from the threatened use of trade secrets?”

A non-compete that bars an employee from working in the industry in any capacity is generally an impermissible “industry-wide exclusion” under Texas law.

The Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in Mercedes-Benz v. Carduco is part of a trend carving back the “fraudulent inducement” theory in business transactions.

The Texas legislature, the Dallas Court of Appeals, and the Fifth Circuit have combined to tame the statute that once swept through Texas litigation like a prairie fire.

Does the loss of sales caused by a breach of a non-compete establish “irreparable injury”?

Can a show about nothing teach us something about workplace conduct between the sexes?