BOISEN v. PETERSEN FLYING SERVICE, INC. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
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.
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
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
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