{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "non-compete", "state": "nebraska", "frontmatter": { "title": "Non-Competes in Nebraska", "description": "Nebraska enforces only narrowly tailored, customer-specific covenants under a common-law reasonableness test, refuses to blue-pencil overbroad employment non-competes, and has no general statutory ban as of 2026.", "state": "Nebraska", "lastReviewed": "2026-06-02", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "enforceability": "reasonable", "bottomLine": "Nebraska enforces only narrowly tailored covenants limited to customers the employee personally served, refuses to rewrite overbroad ones, and has no general statutory ban as of 2026.", "keyLaw": "common law (Securities Acceptance Corp. v. Brown, 106 N.W.2d 456 (Neb. 1960); Polly v. Ray D. Hilderman & Co., 407 N.W.2d 751 (Neb. 1987))", "exceptions": "Franchise non-competes reformable by statute (§ 87-404); sale-of-business more favorable; successor enforcement by merger", "courtNarrowing": "no", "appliesToContractors": "unclear", "extendedForBreach": "Silent", "maxLength": "No statutory limit", "noticeRequirement": "None", "incomeThreshold": "None", "saleOfBusiness": "Sale covenants can run broader than employee restraints; time/space reasonable", "customerNonSolicit": "Limited to customers with whom employee did business", "employeeNonSolicit": "Same three-part Brown reasonableness test; overbroad covenants not reformed (Waadah)" }, "about": [ "Nebraska non-compete agreements", "Nebraska restrictive covenants", "Nebraska customer non-solicitation", "Nebraska no-blue-pencil rule", "Nebraska sale-of-business non-competes", "Nebraska franchise non-competes", "Nebraska Trade Secrets Act", "Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-404" ], "translations": [ { "language": "中文", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Español", "status": "planned" } ], "relatedForm": { "slug": "openagreements-restrictive-covenant-nebraska" } }, "questions": [ { "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability", "label": "Are employee non-competes enforceable in Nebraska?", "heading": "Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Nebraska?", "answerText": "Sometimes, but only if the covenant is narrow and reasonable. Nebraska has no general statutory ban as of June 2026, but Nebraska courts enforce employee restraints only when they protect a legitimate interest and do not go beyond what is reasonably necessary.", "sources": [ { "id": "q1-brown-three-part-test", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Securities Acceptance Corp. v. Brown", "citation": "Securities Acceptance Corp. v. Brown, 171 Neb. 406, 417, 106 N.W.2d 456 (1960).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1948918/securities-acceptance-corporation-v-brown/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1948918/securities-acceptance-corporation-v-brown/#:~:text=There%20are%20three%20general%20requirements,and%20oppressive%20on%20the%20employee.", "proposition": "Securities Acceptance states Nebraska's three-part test for partial restraints of trade.", "verbatimQuote": "There are three general requirements relating to partial restraints of trade: First, is the restriction reasonable in the sense that it is not injurious to the public; second, is the restriction reasonable in the sense that it is no greater than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer in some legitimate interest; and, third, is the restriction reasonable in the sense that it is not unduly harsh and oppressive on the employee.", "date": "1960-12-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q1-brown-three-part-test" }, { "id": "q1-restraint-civil", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1603", "citation": "Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1603.", "url": "https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=59-1603", "proposition": "Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1603 supplies Nebraska's civil statutory baseline against contracts in restraint of trade.", "verbatimQuote": "Any contract, combination, in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce shall be unlawful.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q1-restraint-civil" }, { "id": "q1-restraint-criminal", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-801", "citation": "Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-801.", "url": "https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=59-801", "proposition": "Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-801 supplies Nebraska's older statutory restraint-of-trade policy language.", "verbatimQuote": "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce, within this state, is hereby declared to be illegal.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q1-restraint-criminal" } ] }, { "slug": "reasonableness-test", "label": "What is Nebraska's reasonableness test for non-competes?", "heading": "What is Nebraska's reasonableness test for non-competes?", "answerText": "Nebraska asks three questions: whether the restraint injures the public, whether it is no greater than reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest, and whether it is unduly harsh or oppressive to the employee.", "sources": [ { "id": "q2-aon-reasonableness-test", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Aon Consulting, Inc. v. Midlands Financial Benefits, Inc.", "citation": "Aon Consulting, Inc. v. Midlands Fin. Benefits, Inc., 275 Neb. 642, 748 N.W.2d 626 (2008).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2139960/aon-consulting-v-midlands-financial/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2139960/aon-consulting-v-midlands-financial/#:~:text=In%20determining%20whether%20a%20covenant,and%20oppressive%20on%20the%20employee.", "proposition": "Aon restates Nebraska's three-part reasonableness test for covenants not to compete.", "verbatimQuote": "In determining whether a covenant not to compete is valid, a court considers whether the restriction is (1) reasonable in the sense that it is not injurious to the public, (2) not greater than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer in some legitimate interest, and (3) not unduly harsh and oppressive on the employee.", "date": "2008-05-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q2-aon-reasonableness-test" }, { "id": "q2-aon-focused-goodwill", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Aon Consulting, Inc. v. Midlands Financial Benefits, Inc.", "citation": "Aon Consulting, Inc. v. Midlands Fin. Benefits, Inc., 275 Neb. 642, 748 N.W.2d 626 (2008).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2139960/aon-consulting-v-midlands-financial/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2139960/aon-consulting-v-midlands-financial/#:~:text=The%20agreement%20was%20properly%20focused,Aon's%20goodwill%20with%20its%20customers.", "proposition": "Aon supports enforcing a customer-specific restriction focused on customers with whom the employee personally dealt.", "verbatimQuote": "The agreement was properly focused on the legitimate purpose of protecting Aon's goodwill with its customers.", "date": "2008-05-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q2-aon-focused-goodwill" } ] }, { "slug": "customer-specific-rule", "label": "What customer restrictions work in Nebraska?", "heading": "What customer restrictions work in Nebraska?", "answerText": "The safest Nebraska customer covenant is limited to clients or accounts the employee actually served and had personal contact with. Limiting no-solicit or no-deal language to that customer set is a necessary condition under Polly, not a complete safe harbor — the covenant still must satisfy the general reasonableness test.", "sources": [ { "id": "q3-polly-customer-rule", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Polly v. Ray D. Hilderman & Co.", "citation": "Polly v. Ray D. Hilderman & Co., 225 Neb. 662, 668, 407 N.W.2d 751 (1987).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1235956/polly-v-ray-d-hilderman-co/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1235956/polly-v-ray-d-hilderman-co/#:~:text=Such%20a%20covenant%20may%20be,business%20and%20has%20personal%20contact.", "proposition": "Polly states Nebraska's customer-specific rule for covenants aimed at protecting customer goodwill.", "verbatimQuote": "Such a covenant may be valid only if it restricts the former employee from working for or soliciting the former employer’s clients or accounts with whom the former employee actually did business and has personal contact.", "date": "1987-06-19", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q3-polly-customer-rule" }, { "id": "q3-sisk-prospective-clients", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Sisk v. Scripps Media, Inc.", "citation": "Sisk v. Scripps Media, Inc., No. 8:24CV86, 2024 WL 1175140 (D. Neb. Mar. 18, 2024).", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ned-8_24-cv-00086", "proposition": "Sisk rejected a non-solicit as exceeding the permissible scope of customers an employee may be barred from contacting under Nebraska law.", "verbatimQuote": "This provision greatly exceeds the permissible scope of customers an employee may be precluded from contacting by a restrictive covenant under Nebraska law.", "date": "2024-03-18", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q3-sisk-prospective-clients" } ] }, { "slug": "geographic-noncompetes", "label": "Are geographic employee non-competes valid in Nebraska?", "heading": "Are geographic employee non-competes valid in Nebraska?", "answerText": "Usually high-risk for ordinary employees. Nebraska employment covenants are safest when customer-specific, because a geographic or business-activity ban often blocks ordinary competition rather than protecting a defined goodwill interest.", "sources": [ { "id": "q4-gaver-ordinary-competition", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Gaver v. Schneider's O.K. Tire Co.", "citation": "Gaver v. Schneider's O.K. Tire Co., 289 Neb. 491 (2014).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2751413/gaver-v-schneiders-ok-tire-co/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2751413/gaver-v-schneiders-ok-tire-co/#:~:text=The%20noncompete%20agreement%20as%20written,Schneider%E2%80%99s%20arguments%20to%20the%20contrary.", "proposition": "Gaver supports rejecting a broad employee covenant that prevents ordinary competition rather than unfair competition.", "verbatimQuote": "The noncompete agreement as written is an attempt to prevent ordinary competition, not improper or unjust competition, and we reject Schneider’s arguments to the contrary.", "date": "2014-11-14", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q4-gaver-ordinary-competition" } ] }, { "slug": "court-narrowing", "label": "Will Nebraska courts rewrite an overbroad non-compete?", "heading": "Will Nebraska courts rewrite an overbroad non-compete?", "answerText": "No, not for ordinary employment covenants. Nebraska rejects blue-pencil rewriting and generally enforces the covenant as written or not at all.", "sources": [ { "id": "q5-waadah-blue-pencil", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Unlimited Opportunity, Inc. v. Waadah", "citation": "Unlimited Opportunity, Inc. v. Waadah, 290 Neb. 629, 637, 861 N.W.2d 437 (2015).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2792825/unlimited-opportunity-v-waadah/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2792825/unlimited-opportunity-v-waadah/#:~:text=We%20decline%20Jani%2DKing%E2%80%99s%20invitation%20to,of%20the%20blue%20pencil%20rule.", "proposition": "Waadah reaffirms Nebraska's rejection of blue-pencil reformation for covenants not to compete.", "verbatimQuote": "We decline Jani-King’s invitation to reconsider our rejection of the blue pencil rule.", "date": "2015-04-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q5-waadah-blue-pencil" }, { "id": "q5-waadah-entire-covenant", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Unlimited Opportunity, Inc. v. Waadah", "citation": "Unlimited Opportunity, Inc. v. Waadah, 290 Neb. 629, 637, 861 N.W.2d 437 (2015).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2792825/unlimited-opportunity-v-waadah/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2792825/unlimited-opportunity-v-waadah/#:~:text=The%20district%20court%20was%20correct,if%20one%20portion%20is%20invalid.", "proposition": "Waadah supports treating a nonseverable overbroad restraint as making the entire covenant unenforceable.", "verbatimQuote": "The district court was correct to consider the two covenants together and find the entire clause invalid if one portion is invalid.", "date": "2015-04-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q5-waadah-entire-covenant" } ] }, { "slug": "sale-of-business", "label": "How are sale-of-business non-competes treated in Nebraska?", "heading": "How are sale-of-business non-competes treated in Nebraska?", "answerText": "Sale-of-business covenants get more room than ordinary employee restraints, because the buyer is paying for goodwill and customer relationships. The covenant still must be reasonable in character, space, and time.", "sources": [ { "id": "q6-chambers-goodwill-sale", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Chambers-Dobson, Inc. v. Squier", "citation": "Chambers-Dobson, Inc. v. Squier, 238 Neb. 748, 756, 472 N.W.2d 391 (1991).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2189174/chambers-dobson-inc-v-squier/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2189174/chambers-dobson-inc-v-squier/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20a%20covenant%20not%20to,full%20value%20of%20acquired%20goodwill.", "proposition": "Chambers-Dobson supports treating reasonable sale-of-goodwill covenants more favorably than ordinary employment covenants.", "verbatimQuote": "Thus, a covenant not to compete which is contained in a contract for sale of a business is a seller’s self-imposed restraint from trade and is frequently necessary to make goodwill in the seller’s business a transferable asset and ensure that the buyer receives the full value of acquired goodwill.", "date": "1991-07-26", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q6-chambers-goodwill-sale" }, { "id": "q6-chambers-reasonable-customer-pool", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Chambers-Dobson, Inc. v. Squier", "citation": "Chambers-Dobson, Inc. v. Squier, 238 Neb. 748, 763, 472 N.W.2d 391 (1991).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2189174/chambers-dobson-inc-v-squier/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2189174/chambers-dobson-inc-v-squier/#:~:text=A%20noncompetition%20covenant%20is%20a,the%20property%20acquired%20by%20Chambers%2DDobson.", "proposition": "Chambers-Dobson supports enforcing a sale-related customer restraint where the customer list was purchased property and the time limit was reasonable.", "verbatimQuote": "A noncompetition covenant is a reasonable method to protect the property acquired by Chambers-Dobson.", "date": "1991-07-26", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q6-chambers-reasonable-customer-pool" } ] }, { "slug": "employee-non-solicitation", "label": "How are employee non-solicits treated?", "heading": "How does Nebraska treat employee non-solicitation covenants?", "answerText": "Little Nebraska law in our review squarely addresses employee raiding, so the covenant is judged under the same three-part Securities Acceptance Corp. v. Brown reasonableness test as a non-compete — not injurious to the public, no greater than necessary to protect a legitimate interest, and not unduly harsh on the employee.", "sources": [ { "id": "ne-ens-brown", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Securities Acceptance Corp. v. Brown", "citation": "Securities Acceptance Corp. v. Brown, 171 Neb. 406, 417, 106 N.W.2d 456 (1960).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1948918/securities-acceptance-corporation-v-brown/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1948918/securities-acceptance-corporation-v-brown/#:~:text=There%20are%20three%20general%20requirements,and%20oppressive%20on%20the%20employee.", "proposition": "Securities Acceptance states Nebraska's three-part test for partial restraints of trade.", "verbatimQuote": "There are three general requirements relating to partial restraints of trade: First, is the restriction reasonable in the sense that it is not injurious to the public; second, is the restriction reasonable in the sense that it is no greater than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer in some legitimate interest; and, third, is the restriction reasonable in the sense that it is not unduly harsh and oppressive on the employee.", "date": "1960-12-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-ne-ens-brown" }, { "id": "ne-ens-waadah", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Unlimited Opportunity, Inc. v. Waadah", "citation": "Unlimited Opportunity, Inc. v. Waadah, 290 Neb. 629, 630, 861 N.W.2d 437 (2015).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2792825/unlimited-opportunity-v-waadah/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2792825/unlimited-opportunity-v-waadah/#:~:text=It%20is%20not%20the%20function,order%20to%20make%20it%20enforceable.", "proposition": "Waadah supports the rule that Nebraska courts will not reform an overbroad covenant to save it.", "verbatimQuote": "It is not the function of the courts to reform a covenant not to compete in order to make it enforceable.", "date": "2015-04-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-ne-ens-waadah" } ] }, { "slug": "successor-merger", "label": "Can a successor enforce a Nebraska non-compete after a merger?", "heading": "Can a successor enforce a Nebraska non-compete after a merger?", "answerText": "Yes, when the merger statute governing the transaction transfers the covenant by operation of law. In Aon, applying a merger statute like Maryland's, the Nebraska Supreme Court held a successor could enforce a predecessor's covenant even without a separate assignment clause.", "sources": [ { "id": "q7-aon-merger-successor", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Aon Consulting, Inc. v. Midlands Financial Benefits, Inc.", "citation": "Aon Consulting, Inc. v. Midlands Fin. Benefits, Inc., 275 Neb. 642, 748 N.W.2d 626 (2008).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2139960/aon-consulting-v-midlands-financial/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2139960/aon-consulting-v-midlands-financial/#:~:text=We%20agree%20with%20those%20cases,agreement%20would%20otherwise%20be%20assignable.", "proposition": "Aon supports successor enforcement where the governing merger statute, like Maryland's, transfers the covenant by operation of law.", "verbatimQuote": "We agree with those cases which hold, under statutes similar to Maryland's, that a covenant not to compete is an asset of a corporation which passes by operation of law to a successor corporation as the result of a merger, regardless of whether the agreement would otherwise be assignable.", "date": "2008-05-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q7-aon-merger-successor" }, { "id": "q7-aon-valid-and-passed", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Aon Consulting, Inc. v. Midlands Financial Benefits, Inc.", "citation": "Aon Consulting, Inc. v. Midlands Fin. Benefits, Inc., 275 Neb. 642, 748 N.W.2d 626 (2008).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2139960/aon-consulting-v-midlands-financial/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2139960/aon-consulting-v-midlands-financial/#:~:text=For%20the%20reasons%20discussed%2C%20we,A%20%26%20A%20by%20merger.", "proposition": "Aon held both that the nonsolicitation agreement was valid under Nebraska law and that the right to enforce it passed by operation of law in the merger.", "verbatimQuote": "For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the nonsolicitation agreement between Pearson and A & A was valid under Nebraska law and that the right to enforce the agreement passed to Aon by operation of law when it acquired A & A by merger.", "date": "2008-05-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q7-aon-valid-and-passed" } ] }, { "slug": "franchise-reformation", "label": "What is Nebraska's franchise non-compete exception?", "heading": "What is Nebraska's franchise non-compete exception?", "answerText": "Nebraska has a franchise-only statutory reformation rule. If a franchise non-compete is unreasonable, the court or arbitrator must reform it to a reasonable and enforceable scope.", "sources": [ { "id": "q8-franchise-reformation", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-404", "citation": "Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-404(2).", "url": "https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=87-404", "proposition": "Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-404 requires reformation and enforcement of unreasonable franchise non-compete agreements to the extent necessary to make them reasonable.", "verbatimQuote": "If restrictions in a noncompete agreement are found by an arbitrator or a court to be unreasonable in restraining competition, the arbitrator or court shall reform the terms of the noncompete agreement to the extent necessary to cause the restrictions contained therein to be reasonable and enforceable.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q8-franchise-reformation" }, { "id": "q8-waadah-no-general-reform", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Unlimited Opportunity, Inc. v. Waadah", "citation": "Unlimited Opportunity, Inc. v. Waadah, 290 Neb. 629, 630, 861 N.W.2d 437 (2015).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2792825/unlimited-opportunity-v-waadah/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2792825/unlimited-opportunity-v-waadah/#:~:text=It%20is%20not%20the%20function,order%20to%20make%20it%20enforceable.", "proposition": "Waadah states Nebraska's general common-law refusal to reform covenants not to compete.", "verbatimQuote": "It is not the function of the courts to reform a covenant not to compete in order to make it enforceable.", "date": "2015-04-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q8-waadah-no-general-reform" } ] }, { "slug": "choice-of-law", "label": "Can another state's law save a Nebraska non-compete?", "heading": "Can another state's law save a Nebraska non-compete?", "answerText": "Not reliably. Nebraska courts may apply Nebraska law when the services and competition are centered in Nebraska, especially if enforcing broader foreign law would undercut Nebraska public policy.", "sources": [ { "id": "q9-mertz-nebraska-law-controls", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Mertz v. Pharmacists Mutual Insurance Co.", "citation": "Mertz v. Pharmacists Mut. Ins. Co., 261 Neb. 704, 710, 625 N.W.2d 197 (2001).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1245316/mertz-v-pharmacists-mutual-insurance/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1245316/mertz-v-pharmacists-mutual-insurance/#:~:text=Accordingly%2C%20Nebraska%20law%20should%20be,the%20validity%20of%20the%20covenant.", "proposition": "Mertz supports applying Nebraska law to a covenant where the services and affected competition are in Nebraska.", "verbatimQuote": "Accordingly, Nebraska law should be applied to determine the validity of the covenant.", "date": "2001-05-04", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q9-mertz-nebraska-law-controls" }, { "id": "q9-mertz-public-policy", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Mertz v. Pharmacists Mutual Insurance Co.", "citation": "Mertz v. Pharmacists Mut. Ins. Co., 261 Neb. 704, 710, 625 N.W.2d 197 (2001).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1245316/mertz-v-pharmacists-mutual-insurance/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1245316/mertz-v-pharmacists-mutual-insurance/#:~:text=In%20Nebraska%2C%20this%20court%20has,against%20public%20policy%20and%20void.", "proposition": "Mertz supports Nebraska's public-policy interest against overbroad postemployment covenants.", "verbatimQuote": "In Nebraska, this court has refused to enforce postemployment covenants not to compete which are broader than reasonably necessary to protect legitimate business interests on the ground that such covenants are against public policy and void.", "date": "2001-05-04", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q9-mertz-public-policy" } ] }, { "slug": "trade-secrets", "label": "Do trade secrets make a Nebraska non-compete enforceable?", "heading": "Do trade secrets make a Nebraska non-compete enforceable?", "answerText": "No. Nebraska's Trade Secrets Act gives a separate statutory claim for misappropriation and a narrow definition of what counts as a trade secret, but it does not state a non-compete safe harbor. A covenant still must satisfy Nebraska's reasonableness limits.", "sources": [ { "id": "q10-trade-secrets-act", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-501", "citation": "Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-501.", "url": "https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=87-501", "proposition": "Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-501 identifies Nebraska's Trade Secrets Act as a separate statutory framework.", "verbatimQuote": "Sections 87-501 to 87-507 shall be known and may be cited as the Trade Secrets Act.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q10-trade-secrets-act" }, { "id": "q10-trade-secret-definition", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-502", "citation": "Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-502(4).", "url": "https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=87-502", "proposition": "Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-502 defines trade secret by economic value, non-ascertainability by proper means, and reasonable secrecy efforts.", "verbatimQuote": "Trade secret shall mean information, including, but not limited to, a drawing, formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, code, or process that: (a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being known to, and not being ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q10-trade-secret-definition" }, { "id": "q10-brown-reasonableness", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Securities Acceptance Corp. v. Brown", "citation": "Securities Acceptance Corp. v. Brown, 171 Neb. 406, 417, 106 N.W.2d 456 (1960).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1948918/securities-acceptance-corporation-v-brown/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1948918/securities-acceptance-corporation-v-brown/#:~:text=There%20are%20three%20general%20requirements,and%20oppressive%20on%20the%20employee.", "proposition": "Securities Acceptance states the three-part reasonableness test every Nebraska covenant must satisfy, independent of any trade-secret claim.", "verbatimQuote": "There are three general requirements relating to partial restraints of trade: First, is the restriction reasonable in the sense that it is not injurious to the public; second, is the restriction reasonable in the sense that it is no greater than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer in some legitimate interest; and, third, is the restriction reasonable in the sense that it is not unduly harsh and oppressive on the employee.", "date": "1960-12-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q10-brown-reasonableness" } ] }, { "slug": "extended-for-breach", "label": "Does a Nebraska non-compete period toll during breach or litigation?", "heading": "Does a Nebraska non-compete period toll during breach or litigation?", "answerText": "Nebraska appellate case law is silent. No staged Nebraska appellate decision squarely addresses whether a court may toll a non-compete period during breach or litigation, or whether a contractual extension-on-breach clause is enforceable.", "sources": [ { "id": "q11-brown-reasonableness", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Securities Acceptance Corp. v. Brown", "citation": "Securities Acceptance Corp. v. Brown, 171 Neb. 406, 422, 106 N.W.2d 456 (1960).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1948918/securities-acceptance-corporation-v-brown/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1948918/securities-acceptance-corporation-v-brown/#:~:text=A%20contract%20in%20restraint%20of,against%20public%20policy%20and%20void.", "proposition": "Securities Acceptance holds a restraint unlimited in time or space is void, underscoring that temporal scope bears on a covenant's reasonableness.", "verbatimQuote": "A contract in restraint of trade, which is neither limited in time nor space, is against public policy and void.", "date": "1960-12-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q11-brown-reasonableness" }, { "id": "q11-waadah-no-reform", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Unlimited Opportunity, Inc. v. Waadah", "citation": "Unlimited Opportunity, Inc. v. Waadah, 290 Neb. 629, 630, 861 N.W.2d 437 (2015).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2792825/unlimited-opportunity-v-waadah/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2792825/unlimited-opportunity-v-waadah/#:~:text=It%20is%20not%20the%20function,order%20to%20make%20it%20enforceable.", "proposition": "Waadah supports the caution that Nebraska courts generally will not reform an overbroad covenant to save it.", "verbatimQuote": "It is not the function of the courts to reform a covenant not to compete in order to make it enforceable.", "date": "2015-04-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q11-waadah-no-reform" } ] }, { "slug": "drafting-checklist", "label": "What should a Nebraska non-compete drafting checklist include?", "heading": "What should a Nebraska non-compete drafting checklist include?", "answerText": "Start with the narrowest protectable interest: specific customers the employee personally served, a reasonable lookback, separate confidentiality and trade-secret terms, and no reliance on court rewriting.", "sources": [ { "id": "q12-polly-customer-check", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Polly v. Ray D. Hilderman & Co.", "citation": "Polly v. Ray D. Hilderman & Co., 225 Neb. 662, 669, 407 N.W.2d 751 (1987).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1235956/polly-v-ray-d-hilderman-co/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1235956/polly-v-ray-d-hilderman-co/#:~:text=Because%20the%20covenant%20not%20to,is%20thus%20unreasonable%20and%20unenforceable.", "proposition": "Polly supports drafting Nebraska employee customer restrictions around accounts the employee actually served and personally contacted.", "verbatimQuote": "Because the covenant not to compete in this case attempts to restrict Polly from soliciting or working for Hilderman’s clients with whom Polly did not work and did not even know, it is greater than is reasonably necessary to protect Hilderman’s legitimate interest in customer goodwill, and is thus unreasonable and unenforceable.", "date": "1987-06-19", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q12-polly-customer-check" }, { "id": "q12-gaver-no-reform-check", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Gaver v. Schneider's O.K. Tire Co.", "citation": "Gaver v. Schneider's O.K. Tire Co., 289 Neb. 491 (2014).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2751413/gaver-v-schneiders-ok-tire-co/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2751413/gaver-v-schneiders-ok-tire-co/#:~:text=We%20have%20determined%20above%20that,it%20to%20make%20it%20enforceable.", "proposition": "Gaver supports the drafting caution that Nebraska courts do not reform unreasonable covenants to make them enforceable.", "verbatimQuote": "We have determined above that the noncompete agreement in this case is unreasonable, and we do not reform it to make it enforceable.", "date": "2014-11-14", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q12-gaver-no-reform-check" }, { "id": "q12-sisk-modern-warning", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Sisk v. Scripps Media, Inc.", "citation": "Sisk v. Scripps Media, Inc., No. 8:24CV86, 2024 WL 1175140 (D. Neb. Mar. 18, 2024).", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ned-8_24-cv-00086", "proposition": "Sisk supports a modern warning that broad media non-compete and non-solicit covenants are unreasonable and unenforceable under Nebraska law.", "verbatimQuote": "Because both covenants at issue are unreasonable and unenforceable under Nebraska law, Sisk has demonstrated a fair chance of prevailing on the merits of his underlying action.", "date": "2024-03-18", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska#src-q12-sisk-modern-warning" } ] } ] } }