BOISEN v. PETERSEN FLYING SERVICE, INC. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An aerial spraying company’s non-compete agreement with a former pilot was held unenforceable. The court found the agreement’s purpose was to prevent ordinary competition, not to protect a legitimate business interest like customer goodwill or trade secrets.
Legal Significance: A post-employment covenant not to compete is invalid if its purpose is merely to shield an employer from ordinary competition, rather than to protect a legitimate business interest against unfair competition by a former employee.
BOISEN v. PETERSEN FLYING SERVICE, INC. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Douglas Boisen, a farmer and pilot, was hired by Petersen Flying Service, Inc. as an aerial spray pilot. The employment contract contained a covenant not to compete. During his employment, Boisen’s duties consisted of flying the spray plane and mixing chemicals according to manufacturer instructions. He did not solicit customers, handle accounts, or have substantial personal contact with the company’s clientele, though he knew some customers from living in the community. Petersen Flying had no trade secrets or confidential customer lists; customers were generally known in the farming community and business was based on price. The company’s president acknowledged that the reason for the covenant was to prevent training a future competitor. After Petersen Flying terminated Boisen’s employment, Boisen sought a declaratory judgment that the non-compete covenant was invalid, as he intended to start his own aerial spraying business.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a post-employment covenant not to compete enforceable when its purpose is to prevent a former employee from engaging in ordinary competition, rather than to protect a legitimate business interest of the employer?
No. The covenant not to compete is invalid and unenforceable because it Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is a post-employment covenant not to compete enforceable when its purpose is to prevent a former employee from engaging in ordinary competition, rather than to protect a legitimate business interest of the employer?
Conclusion
This case establishes that the existence of a legitimate business interest is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nis
Legal Rule
A post-employment covenant not to compete is enforceable only if it is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident,
Legal Analysis
The court began its analysis by establishing that the threshold question for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmo
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A post-employment non-compete is only enforceable if it protects a legitimate