open-agreements 0.7.7 → 0.8.0

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/kansas.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Kansas"
 slug: kansas
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-02"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/kansas
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/kansas · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kansas · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Kansas[^about]
 
@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ The modern rule has a common-law root. In *Eastern Distributing*, the Kansas Sup
 
 Reformation has a ceiling, though. A court reforms an *unreasonable* term; it may not rewrite a term that was already reasonable. In *Doan*, the Court of Appeals held the trial court erred when it cut a reasonable two-year term down to one year [^doan-no-rewrite].
 
-The 2025 statutory amendments add a separate, mandatory reformation command, but it is aimed at the covenants the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act actually governs. K.S.A. 50-163 directs a court to modify and enforce an overbroad covenant that is *not* conclusively presumed enforceable [^q3-ksa-50-163-reform], yet the same statute excludes covenants not to compete from the Act altogether [^q3-ksa-50-163-noncompete-exclusion]. For a traditional non-compete, the operative reformation authority remains the common-law equity power recognized in *Eastern Distributing*, not the statute. No published Kansas decision has yet construed that exclusion as applied to a non-compete, so this reading rests on the statute's plain text.
+The 2025 statutory amendments add a separate, mandatory reformation command, but it is aimed at the covenants the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act actually governs. K.S.A. 50-163 directs a court to modify and enforce an overbroad covenant that is *not* conclusively presumed enforceable [^q3-ksa-50-163-reform], yet the same statute excludes covenants not to compete from the Act altogether [^q3-ksa-50-163-noncompete-exclusion]. For a traditional non-compete, the operative reformation authority remains the common-law equity power recognized in *Eastern Distributing*, not the statute. No published Kansas decision has yet construed that exclusion as applied to a non-compete, so this reading rests on the statute's plain text. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these drafting rules, the [Kansas non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/kansas) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 > [!CAUTION]
 > **Drafting note.**
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ The statute defines owner broadly to include sellers of business assets and equi
 
 A 2026 bill, HB 2650, would have voided non-competes on the sale or change in control of an employer, but it also died in the 2025 to 2026 session and is not law.
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Kansas. This article synthesizes Kansas primary law and is not legal advice from a Kansas-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Kansas. This article synthesizes Kansas primary law and is not legal advice from a Kansas-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^weber-governing-standard]: **Weber v. Tillman** — "A noncompetition covenant ancillary to an employment contract is valid and enforceable if the restraint is reasonable under the circumstances and not adverse to the public welfare." *Weber v. Tillman, 259 Kan. 457, 913 P.2d 84 (1996).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7969238/weber-v-tillman/#:~:text=A%20noncompetition%20covenant%20ancillary%20to,adverse%20to%20the%20public%20welfare.>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/kentucky.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Kentucky"
 slug: kentucky
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-03"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/kentucky
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/kentucky · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/kentucky · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Kentucky[^about]
 
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ Because the standard is holistic, geography and duration are evaluated together
 
 *Kegel v. Tillotson* states the rule directly: Kentucky courts are empowered to reform or amend restrictions in a non-compete clause when the initial terms are overly broad or burdensome [^kegel-blue-pencil]. *Hodges v. Todd* shows how far that power can reach — there, in the sale-of-a-business context, the court held that a trial court could enforce a covenant that omitted any geographic limit by establishing a reasonable one based on the parties' intent [^hodges-reformation-geography].
 
-That equitable power is not a license to overreach. Reformation is discretionary, and an employer that drafts an abusively broad covenant cannot assume a court will simply rewrite it into something enforceable.
+That equitable power is not a license to overreach. Reformation is discretionary, and an employer that drafts an abusively broad covenant cannot assume a court will simply rewrite it into something enforceable. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these drafting rules, the [Kentucky non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/kentucky) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 > [!CAUTION]
 > **Drafting note.**
@@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ The enacted baseline therefore remains common-law reasonableness and considerati
 >
 > Treat House Bill 690 and Senate Bill 234 as monitoring items, not present Kentucky law. Recheck the Kentucky General Assembly bill status each session before changing forms or telling workers that Kentucky has enacted a wage-threshold or general non-compete ban [^hb690-wage-threshold].
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Kentucky. This article synthesizes Kentucky primary law and is not legal advice from a Kentucky-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Kentucky. This article synthesizes Kentucky primary law and is not legal advice from a Kentucky-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^kegel-reasonableness-test]: **Kegel v. Tillotson** — "agreements on restraint of trade are reasonable if, ‘on consideration of the subject, nature of the business, situation of the parties and circumstances of the particular case, the restriction is such only as to afford fair protection to the interests of the covenan-tee and is not so large as to interfere with the public interests or impose undue hardship on the party restricted." *Kegel v. Tillotson, 297 S.W.3d 908 (Ky. App. 2009).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2169063/kegel-v-tillotson/#:~:text=agreements%20on%20restraint%20of%20trade,hardship%20on%20the%20party%20restricted.>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/louisiana.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Louisiana"
 slug: louisiana
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-03"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/louisiana
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/louisiana
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/louisiana · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/louisiana · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Louisiana[^about]
 
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ A note on vocabulary: some Louisiana opinions use the word *reform* to describe
 
 "Restrictive covenants are unfavored in Louisiana and are narrowly and strictly construed."[^brock-severance]
 
-The drafting lesson is the opposite of the strategy that works in reformation states. Casting a wide net in the hope a judge will trim it down is a high-risk approach in Louisiana, where the more likely outcome is total nullity of the non-compliant provision.
+The drafting lesson is the opposite of the strategy that works in reformation states. Casting a wide net in the hope a judge will trim it down is a high-risk approach in Louisiana, where the more likely outcome is total nullity of the non-compliant provision. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these rules, the [Louisiana non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/louisiana) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 > [!CAUTION]
 > **Drafting note.**
@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ This distinction matters in drafting. A *customer* non-solicit still operates as
 
 A common strategy for multistate employers is to choose the law of a more employer-friendly state. Louisiana closed that door directly in the statute. Subsection A(2) voids forum and choice-of-law clauses in employment contracts except in a narrow ratification scenario.
 
-"(2) The provisions of every employment contract or agreement...shall be null and void except where the choice of forum clause or choice of law clause is expressly, knowingly, and voluntarily agreed to and ratified by the employee after the occurrence of the incident which is the subject of the civil or administrative action."[^rs-23921-a2]
+"(2) The provisions of every employment contract or agreement, or provisions thereof, by which any foreign or domestic employer or any other person or entity includes a choice of forum clause or choice of law clause in an employee's contract of employment or collective bargaining agreement, or attempts to enforce either a choice of forum clause or choice of law clause in any civil or administrative action involving an employee, shall be null and void except where the choice of forum clause or choice of law clause is expressly, knowingly, and voluntarily agreed to and ratified by the employee after the occurrence of the incident which is the subject of the civil or administrative action."[^rs-23921-a2]
 
 The ratification exception is rarely available in practice, because an employee almost never agrees, after a dispute has begun, to be governed by another state's more restrictive law. For a Louisiana resident, the realistic planning assumption is that Louisiana law will apply regardless of the contract's choice-of-law clause.
 
@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ Beyond the general framework, the legislature has carved out specific occupation
 
 Real estate brokers and licensees are governed by a separate statute that makes a non-compete an absolute nullity unless the licensee receives a short rescission window.
 
-"A non-compete agreement between a real estate broker and licensee...shall be unenforceable and an absolute nullity unless the licensee shall have the right to rescind the non-compete agreement until midnight of the third business day following the execution of the non-compete agreement or the delivery of the agreement to the licensee, whichever is later."[^rs-37-1448]
+"A non-compete agreement between a real estate broker and licensee which requires the licensee to refrain from carrying on or engaging in a business similar to that of the real estate broker or from soliciting customers of the real estate broker within a specified parish or parishes, municipality or municipalities, or parts thereof, so long as the real estate broker carries on a like business therein, for any period of time up to two years, shall be unenforceable and an absolute nullity unless the licensee shall have the right to rescind the non-compete agreement until midnight of the third business day following the execution of the non-compete agreement or the delivery of the agreement to the licensee, whichever is later."[^rs-37-1448]
 
 The newest carve-out covers interns and apprentices. Act 150 of 2026, enacting La. R.S. 23:921(P) effective August 1, 2026, bars non-competes for interns and apprentices outright [^act150-intern].
 
@@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ A confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement is not subject to the parish-namin
 >
 > Do not draft a confidentiality agreement so broadly that it functions as a disguised non-compete. The trade-secret statute protects information and supports an injunction against misappropriation, but a confidentiality clause that effectively bars the employee from working risks being treated as a non-compete under La. R.S. 23:921 [^rs-51-1432][^q11-rs-23921-a1].
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Louisiana. This article synthesizes Louisiana primary law and is not legal advice from a Louisiana-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Louisiana. This article synthesizes Louisiana primary law and is not legal advice from a Louisiana-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^rs-23921-a1]: **La. R.S. 23:921** — "Every contract or agreement, or provision thereof, by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, except as provided in this Section, shall be null and void." *La. R.S. 23:921(A)(1).* <https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=84015>
 
@@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ A confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement is not subject to the parish-namin
 
 [^farris-no-duration]: **Brown & Root Industrial Services, LLC v. Farris** — "In fact, the entire Agreement is devoid of any language, wording, or indication as to the duration of the terms of the contract." *Brown & Root Indus. Servs., LLC v. Farris, 392 So. 3d 424 (La. Ct. App. 2024).* <https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/la-court-of-appeal/116318576.html>
 
-[^rs-23921-a2]: **La. R.S. 23:921** — "(2) The provisions of every employment contract or agreement...shall be null and void except where the choice of forum clause or choice of law clause is expressly, knowingly, and voluntarily agreed to and ratified by the employee after the occurrence of the incident which is the subject of the civil or administrative action." *La. R.S. 23:921(A)(2).* <https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=84015>
+[^rs-23921-a2]: **La. R.S. 23:921** — "(2) The provisions of every employment contract or agreement, or provisions thereof, by which any foreign or domestic employer or any other person or entity includes a choice of forum clause or choice of law clause in an employee's contract of employment or collective bargaining agreement, or attempts to enforce either a choice of forum clause or choice of law clause in any civil or administrative action involving an employee, shall be null and void except where the choice of forum clause or choice of law clause is expressly, knowingly, and voluntarily agreed to and ratified by the employee after the occurrence of the incident which is the subject of the civil or administrative action." *La. R.S. 23:921(A)(2).* <https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=84015>
 
 [^rs-23921-m]: **La. R.S. 23:921** — "Any provision in a contract or agreement which restrains a primary care physician from practicing medicine shall not exceed three years from the effective date of the initial contract or agreement." *La. R.S. 23:921(M)(1).* <https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=84015>
 
@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ A confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement is not subject to the parish-namin
 
 [^rs-23921-i]: **La. R.S. 23:921** — "There shall be no contract or agreement or provision entered into by an automobile salesman and his employer restraining him from selling automobiles." *La. R.S. 23:921(I)(1).* <https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=84015>
 
-[^rs-37-1448]: **La. R.S. 37:1448.1** — "A non-compete agreement between a real estate broker and licensee...shall be unenforceable and an absolute nullity unless the licensee shall have the right to rescind the non-compete agreement until midnight of the third business day following the execution of the non-compete agreement or the delivery of the agreement to the licensee, whichever is later." *La. R.S. 37:1448.1(A).* <https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=93285>
+[^rs-37-1448]: **La. R.S. 37:1448.1** — "A non-compete agreement between a real estate broker and licensee which requires the licensee to refrain from carrying on or engaging in a business similar to that of the real estate broker or from soliciting customers of the real estate broker within a specified parish or parishes, municipality or municipalities, or parts thereof, so long as the real estate broker carries on a like business therein, for any period of time up to two years, shall be unenforceable and an absolute nullity unless the licensee shall have the right to rescind the non-compete agreement until midnight of the third business day following the execution of the non-compete agreement or the delivery of the agreement to the licensee, whichever is later." *La. R.S. 37:1448.1(A).* <https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=93285>
 
 [^act150-intern]: **La. Acts 2026, No. 150 (H.B. 315)** — "There shall be no contract or agreement or provision entered into by an intern, whether paid or unpaid, or apprentice and his employer restraining the intern or apprentice from engaging in a business or an employment similar to that of the employer." *La. Acts 2026, No. 150 (enacting La. R.S. 23:921(P)), eff. Aug. 1, 2026.* <https://legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1475140>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/maine.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Maine"
 slug: maine
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-02"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/maine
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/maine
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/maine · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/maine · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Maine[^about]
 
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ The delayed-effectiveness rule is separate from the signing rule. A compliant ag
 
 That makes Maine different from a strict red-pencil jurisdiction and from a mechanical blue-pencil state. The court can focus on the actual enforcement request, but the requested restraint still must be reasonable in duration, geography, and protected interest.
 
-*Lord* gives the limiting principle. The court may require specificity about what goodwill or business value needs protection before imposing or enforcing a severe restraint [^lord-specificity-goodwill-restraint].
+*Lord* gives the limiting principle. The court may require specificity about what goodwill or business value needs protection before imposing or enforcing a severe restraint [^lord-specificity-goodwill-restraint]. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these rules, the [Maine non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/maine) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 > [!CAUTION]
 > **Drafting note.**
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ The 2026 healthcare development is now law. Governor Mills signed L.D. 2200 on A
 >
 > Confirm the codified text before relying on the § 599-A page alone for healthcare covenants. L.D. 2200 was signed on April 15, 2026 but does not take effect until July 13, 2026, so the Revisor's current § 599-A text may still show only the wage-floor and veterinarian prohibitions until the amendment is codified [^maine-599a-current-prohibited-workers][^ebg-ld2200-effective].
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Maine. This article synthesizes Maine primary law and is not legal advice from a Maine-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Maine. This article synthesizes Maine primary law and is not legal advice from a Maine-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^maine-599a-public-policy-narrow-interests]: **26 M.R.S. § 599-A — Noncompete agreements** — "Noncompete agreements are contrary to public policy and are enforceable only to the extent that they are reasonable and are no broader than necessary to protect one or more of the following legitimate business interests of the employer:" *26 M.R.S. § 599-A(2).* <https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26sec599-A.html>
 
@@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ The 2026 healthcare development is now law. Governor Mills signed L.D. 2200 on A
 
 [^lord-specificity-goodwill-restraint]: **Lord v. Lord** — "Upon remand, on the basis of the existing record and any further evidence received, the presiding justice should first define the nature and components of the good will included in the determination of value and then proceed to determine the scope of any restraint which may be reasonably necessary to protect the value of the asset." *Lord v. Lord, 454 A.2d 830, 835 (Me. 1983).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2367150/lord-v-lord/#:~:text=Upon%20remand%2C%20on%20the%20basis,the%20value%20of%20the%20asset.>
 
-[^maine-599b-no-poach-definition-ban]: **26 M.R.S. § 599-B — Restrictive employment agreements** — "An employer may not:" *26 M.R.S. § 599-B(2).* <https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26sec599-B.html>
+[^maine-599b-no-poach-definition-ban]: **26 M.R.S. § 599-B — Restrictive employment agreements** — "An employer may not: A. Enter into a restrictive employment agreement" *26 M.R.S. § 599-B(2).* <https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26sec599-B.html>
 
 [^maine-599b-penalty-enforcement]: **26 M.R.S. § 599-B — Restrictive employment agreements** — "An employer that violates subsection 2 commits a civil violation for which a fine of not less than $5,000 may be adjudged. The Department of Labor is responsible for enforcement of this section." *26 M.R.S. § 599-B(3).* <https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26sec599-B.html>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/maryland.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Maryland"
 slug: maryland
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-03"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/maryland
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/maryland
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/maryland · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/maryland · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Maryland[^about]
 
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ Scope of the prohibited activity matters as much as miles and months. In *Medisp
 
 *Holloway* describes the typical Maryland response to an invalid portion of a covenant: blue-pencil the violative words and, if what is excised is severable, enforce the rest; otherwise the entire agreement is void [^holloway-blue-pencil]. The traditional, strict version of that rule is mechanical — a court strikes words and enforces what is left only if the remainder still stands as a complete, valid contract [^holloway-mechanical-rule]. Maryland's focus is therefore on severability: the *Holloway* litigation, affirmed in part by the Maryland Supreme Court, turned on whether the covenant could be severed (there, on a client-by-client basis) rather than on a court rewriting the bargain.
 
-*Hebb v. Stump, Harvey & Cook* shows the partial-enforcement side in practice. Where an overbroad restriction is not so interwoven as to be logically inseparable from the rest of the contract, a Maryland court will sever it and enforce the lawful remainder when partial enforcement works no injury to the public and no injustice to the parties [^hebb-severable-partial-enforcement].
+*Hebb v. Stump, Harvey & Cook* shows the partial-enforcement side in practice. Where an overbroad restriction is not so interwoven as to be logically inseparable from the rest of the contract, a Maryland court will sever it and enforce the lawful remainder when partial enforcement works no injury to the public and no injustice to the parties [^hebb-severable-partial-enforcement]. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these drafting rules, the [Maryland non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/maryland) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 > [!CAUTION]
 > **Drafting note.**
@@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ A broader 2025 effort to clarify that § 3-716 reaches only post-separation rest
 >
 > Treat the § 3-716 categories as a moving target. Re-check the worker's wage band and occupation against the current statute each session, and remember the architect provision is enacted but does not begin until agreements executed on or after October 1, 2026 [^hb1016-architect-out-of-state].
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Maryland. This article synthesizes Maryland primary law and is not legal advice from a Maryland-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Maryland. This article synthesizes Maryland primary law and is not legal advice from a Maryland-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^seneca-four-part-test]: **Seneca One Finance, Inc. v. Bloshuk** — "In Maryland, a restrictive employment covenant will only be enforced if it meets four requirements: ‘(1) the employer must have a legally protected interest, (2) the restrictive covenant must be no wider in scope and duration than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer’s interest, (3) the covenant cannot impose an undue hardship on the employee, and (4) the covenant cannot violate public policy.’" *Seneca One Fin., Inc. v. Bloshuk, 214 F. Supp. 3d 457 (D. Md. 2016).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7322313/seneca-one-finance-inc-v-bloshuk/#:~:text=In%20Maryland%2C%20a%20restrictive%20employment,covenant%20cannot%20violate%20public%20policy.%E2%80%9D>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/massachusetts.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Massachusetts"
 slug: massachusetts
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-03"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/massachusetts
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/massachusetts
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/massachusetts · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/massachusetts · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Massachusetts[^about]
 
@@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ This is a discretionary power, not a guarantee. The statute lets a court rewrite
 
 **Short answer.** It can, under the material-change doctrine. Massachusetts courts have long held that far-reaching changes to the employment relationship can show the parties abandoned the old agreement and formed a new one — voiding a covenant signed under the earlier terms [^bartlett-abandonment][^bartlett-newcontract].
 
-In *F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co. v. Barrington*, the Supreme Judicial Court treated successive material changes in pay and position as evidence that the original contract — and its non-compete — had been abandoned and replaced [^bartlett-newcontract]. The doctrine's force after the 2018 act is unsettled, so the conservative practice is to have the employee sign a fresh, statute-compliant covenant on each material promotion or change in terms rather than rely on an old one.
+In *F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co. v. Barrington*, the Supreme Judicial Court treated successive material changes in pay and position as evidence that the original contract — and its non-compete — had been abandoned and replaced [^bartlett-newcontract]. The doctrine's force after the 2018 act is unsettled, so the conservative practice is to have the employee sign a fresh, statute-compliant covenant on each material promotion or change in terms rather than rely on an old one. When re-papering or reviewing a specific agreement clause by clause, the [Massachusetts non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/massachusetts) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 > [!NOTE]
 > **Practice note.**
@@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ Because so many workers and covenants fall outside the act — laid-off employee
 >
 > Confirm the current status of pending Massachusetts non-compete legislation before relying on this summary, because reform bills are active in the 2025–2026 session. The settled law remains the 2018 act as interpreted in *Miele*, which keeps non-solicitation and confidentiality covenants outside the act's garden-leave and duration limits [^rd-miele-plain-language].
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Massachusetts. This article synthesizes Massachusetts primary law and is not legal advice from a Massachusetts-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Massachusetts. This article synthesizes Massachusetts primary law and is not legal advice from a Massachusetts-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^mnaa-validity]: **Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 24L** — "To be valid and enforceable, a noncompetition agreement must meet the minimum requirements of paragraphs (i) through (viii)." *Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 24L(b).* <https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/Chapter149/Section24L>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/michigan.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Michigan"
 slug: michigan
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-03"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/michigan
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/michigan
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/michigan · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/michigan · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Michigan[^about]
 
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ Michigan enforces employee non-competes only when they are reasonable under MCL
 
 **Short answer.** Yes, sometimes. Michigan is a reasonableness state, not a general-ban state: MCL 445.774a lets an employer enforce a covenant that protects a reasonable competitive business interest and is reasonable in duration, geographic area, and the type of employment restricted [^mcl-774a-employer-may-obtain][^borgiel-unfair-advantage].
 
-The governing statute is part of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act. A covenant is valid only if it does more than block ordinary competition — under *St. Clair Medical, P.C. v. Borgiel* it must protect against the employee gaining an *unfair* competitive advantage and may not stop the employee from using general knowledge or skill [^borgiel-unfair-advantage].
+The governing statute is part of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act. A covenant is valid only if it does more than block ordinary competition — under *St. Clair Medical, P.C. v. Borgiel* it must protect against the employee gaining an *unfair* competitive advantage and may not stop the employee from using general knowledge or skill [^borgiel-unfair-advantage]. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these rules, the [Michigan non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/michigan) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 "To be reasonable in relation to an employer's competitive business interest, a restrictive covenant must protect against the employee's gaining some unfair advantage in competition with the employer, but not prohibit the employee from using general knowledge or skill."[^borgiel-unfair-advantage]
 
@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ A separate 2025 development affects onboarding paperwork that bundles covenants.
 >
 > Treat HB 4040 as a monitoring item, not as present Michigan law. Recheck the official Michigan Legislature bill status before changing forms or telling workers that Michigan has enacted a general non-compete ban [^hb-4040-worker-ban].
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Michigan. This article synthesizes Michigan primary law and is not legal advice from a Michigan-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Michigan. This article synthesizes Michigan primary law and is not legal advice from a Michigan-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^mcl-774a-employer-may-obtain]: **MCL § 445.774a** — "An employer may obtain from an employee an agreement or covenant which protects an employer's reasonable competitive business interests and expressly prohibits an employee from engaging in employment or a line of business after termination of employment if the agreement or covenant is reasonable as to its duration, geographical area, and the type of employment or line of business." *MCL § 445.774a(1).* <https://legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-445-774a>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/minnesota.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Minnesota"
 slug: minnesota
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-05-27"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/minnesota
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/minnesota
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/minnesota · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/minnesota · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Employment Non-Competes in Minnesota[^about]
 
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ A question-by-question summary of Minnesota's 2023 non-compete statute, legacy M
 
 The statute covers employees and independent contractors. It defines an employee as any individual who performs services for an employer, "including independent contractors"[^minn-181-988-includes-independent-contractors], and commentary treats that scope as broader than wage-threshold statutes in many other states [^cooley-minn-181-988-independent-contractors][^littler-minn-181-988-complete-prohibition].
 
-For a standard post-employment employee non-compete signed on or after July 1, 2023, the practical answer is to remove it rather than revise the duration, territory, or employee class. Those older drafting variables matter mainly for pre-July 1, 2023 agreements and for the statute's narrow business-sale and dissolution exceptions.
+For a standard post-employment employee non-compete signed on or after July 1, 2023, the practical answer is to remove it rather than revise the duration, territory, or employee class. Those older drafting variables matter mainly for pre-July 1, 2023 agreements and for the statute's narrow business-sale and dissolution exceptions. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement under both regimes, the [Minnesota non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/minnesota) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 ## What law governs Minnesota non-compete agreements signed before July 1, 2023? {#pre-2023-agreements}
 
@@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ The statute includes independent contractors in its employee definition and requ
 
 **2025 legislative context:** A 2025 bill proposed additional exceptions to section 181.988 for certain high-compensation employees [^minn-hf1768-proposed-exceptions]; it has not been enacted as of this article's publication.
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-05-27. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Minnesota. This article synthesizes Minnesota primary law and is not legal advice from a Minnesota-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-05-27. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Minnesota. This article synthesizes Minnesota primary law and is not legal advice from a Minnesota-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^minn-181-988-voids-employment-noncompetes]: **Minn. Stat. § 181.988, subd. 2(a)** — "Any covenant not to compete contained in a contract or agreement is void and unenforceable." *Minn. Stat. § 181.988, subd. 2(a) (2025).* <https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/181.988>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/mississippi.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Mississippi"
 slug: mississippi
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-03"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/mississippi
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/mississippi
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/mississippi · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/mississippi · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Mississippi[^about]
 
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ Remote work does not dissolve a geographic limit. In *Timber Lake Foods v. Estes
 
 *Redd Pest Control Co. v. Heatherly* is the classic example. The covenant on its face barred competition across the entire state, but the court enforced it only within Tupelo and a fifty-mile radius — the area where the employee actually held customer relationships — and remanded for an injunction limited to that reasonable scope [^heatherly-enforce-reasonable-part]. The court framed the issue as whether a restraint reasonable in part and unreasonable in the rest should be enforced as to the reasonable part, and answered yes [^heatherly-partial-enforcement-issue].
 
-This power is broader than a strict blue pencil that only crosses out severable words, but it is not a safety net for abusive drafting. Reformation rests on the chancellor's equitable discretion, and a grossly overbroad covenant invites a court to decline enforcement rather than rewrite it.
+This power is broader than a strict blue pencil that only crosses out severable words, but it is not a safety net for abusive drafting. Reformation rests on the chancellor's equitable discretion, and a grossly overbroad covenant invites a court to decline enforcement rather than rewrite it. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these drafting rules, the [Mississippi non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/mississippi) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 > [!CAUTION]
 > **Drafting note.**
@@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ In *Ryan LLC v. FTC*, a federal court held the agency lacked authority to issue
 
 "The Non-Compete Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 910.1–.6, is hereby SET ASIDE and shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect on September 4, 2024, or thereafter."[^ryan-ftc-set-aside]
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Mississippi. This article synthesizes Mississippi primary law and is not legal advice from a Mississippi-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Mississippi. This article synthesizes Mississippi primary law and is not legal advice from a Mississippi-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^texas-road-boring-three-aspects]: **Texas Road Boring Co. of Louisiana-Mississippi v. Parker** — "Non-competition agreements are not favored in law and in considering them, courts recognize there are three major aspects to be looked to: the rights of the employer, the rights of the employee, and the rights of the public." *Texas Road Boring Co. of La.-Miss. v. Parker, 194 So. 2d 885 (Miss. 1967).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1880375/texas-road-boring-co-of-louisiana-miss-v-parker/#:~:text=Non%2Dcompetition%20agreements%20are%20not%20favored,the%20rights%20of%20the%20public.>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/missouri.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Missouri"
 slug: missouri
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-03"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/missouri
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/missouri · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/missouri · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Missouri[^about]
 
@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ Because *Baker* arose in the arbitration context and the Missouri Supreme Court
 
 **Short answer.** It can, but it does not have to. Missouri courts have authority to refuse to enforce unreasonable terms or to modify an overbroad covenant to make it reasonable, yet modification is discretionary — a court may instead decline to enforce the covenant at all [^whelan-modification][^sigma-refused-modification].
 
-In *Sigma-Aldrich*, the court of appeals affirmed both the trial court's refusal to enforce a covenant that lacked any geographic or other non-temporal limit and its discretionary decision not to rewrite it [^sigma-refused-modification]. There is also a litigation-economics trap: an employer that needs the court to blue-pencil its overbroad agreement may not qualify as the prevailing party and can lose its contractual right to attorney's fees [^paradise-prevailing-party].
+In *Sigma-Aldrich*, the court of appeals affirmed both the trial court's refusal to enforce a covenant that lacked any geographic or other non-temporal limit and its discretionary decision not to rewrite it [^sigma-refused-modification]. There is also a litigation-economics trap: an employer that needs the court to blue-pencil its overbroad agreement may not qualify as the prevailing party and can lose its contractual right to attorney's fees [^paradise-prevailing-party]. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these drafting rules, the [Missouri non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/missouri) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 "Accordingly, when the provisions of a non-compete clause impose a restraint that is unreasonably broad, appellate courts still can give effect to its purpose by refusing to give effect to the unreasonable terms or modifying the terms of the contract to be reasonable."[^whelan-modification]
 
@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ A liquidated-damages provision is valid in Missouri when the amount is a reasona
 >
 > Draft any liquidated-damages clause as a genuine, reasonable forecast of hard-to-measure harm, not a deterrent penalty, or it will not be enforced. Keep a separate confidentiality and trade-secret strategy under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act so relief does not depend solely on the covenant [^mayer-liquidated-damages][^mutsa-contractual-remedies].
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Missouri. This article synthesizes Missouri primary law and is not legal advice from a Missouri-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Missouri. This article synthesizes Missouri primary law and is not legal advice from a Missouri-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^copeland-reasonable-standard]: **Healthcare Services of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland** — "In practical terms, a non-compete agreement is reasonable if it is no more restrictive than is necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the employer." *Healthcare Servs. of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland, 198 S.W.3d 604 (Mo. banc 2006).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1654936/healthcare-services-of-the-ozarks-inc-v-copeland/#:~:text=In%20practical%20terms%2C%20a%20non%2Dcompete,legitimate%20interests%20of%20the%20employer.>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/montana.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Montana"
 slug: montana
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-02"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/montana
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/montana
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/montana · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/montana · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Montana[^about]
 
@@ -132,14 +132,14 @@ The 2025 amendments matter for timing. HB 198 added naturopathic physicians, RNs
 
 MUTSA defines trade secrets as information or software that has independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable and is subject to reasonable secrecy efforts [^mutsa-trade-secret-definition]. It also authorizes injunctions for actual or threatened misappropriation, with limited royalty and affirmative-act remedies in appropriate cases [^mutsa-injunction].
 
-Section 28-2-604 gives Montana courts a partial-void rule when a contract has distinct lawful and unlawful objects. But restrictive covenants are strictly construed, and cases like *Curl* void overbroad restraints rather than rewriting them into better covenants. Treat severability as a cleanup rule for distinct promises, not a drafting strategy for an aggressive non-compete.
+Section 28-2-604 gives Montana courts a partial-void rule when a contract has distinct lawful and unlawful objects. But restrictive covenants are strictly construed, and cases like *Curl* void overbroad restraints rather than rewriting them into better covenants. Treat severability as a cleanup rule for distinct promises, not a drafting strategy for an aggressive non-compete. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these drafting rules, the [Montana non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/montana) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 > [!CAUTION]
 > **Drafting note.**
 >
 > Do not assume Montana will rewrite an overbroad covenant into a narrower one. Draft separate confidentiality, trade-secret, customer, repayment, and competition provisions so lawful objects can stand on their own if a restraint fails [^montana-partial-void][^curl-void-covenant].
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Montana. This article synthesizes Montana primary law and is not legal advice from a Montana-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Montana. This article synthesizes Montana primary law and is not legal advice from a Montana-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^montana-restraint-baseline]: **Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-703** — "28-2-703. Contracts in restraint of trade generally void. Any contract by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, otherwise than is provided for by 28-2-704 or 28-2-705, is to that extent void." *Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-703.* <https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0020/part_0070/section_0030/0280-0020-0070-0030.html>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/nebraska.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Nebraska"
 slug: nebraska
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-02"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/nebraska
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/nebraska · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nebraska · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Nebraska[^about]
 
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ Older cases sometimes enforced geographic language, and sale-of-business covenan
 
 **Short answer.** No, not for ordinary employment covenants. Nebraska rejects blue-pencil rewriting and generally enforces the covenant as written or not at all [^q5-waadah-blue-pencil].
 
-This is one of Nebraska's most important drafting rules. If the covenant reaches too far, the court does not trim the term, delete the bad customer category, or rewrite the geography to something reasonable. *Waadah* also confirms that when integrated restraints are not severable, one invalid part can make the whole non-compete agreement unenforceable [^q5-waadah-entire-covenant].
+This is one of Nebraska's most important drafting rules. If the covenant reaches too far, the court does not trim the term, delete the bad customer category, or rewrite the geography to something reasonable. *Waadah* also confirms that when integrated restraints are not severable, one invalid part can make the whole non-compete agreement unenforceable [^q5-waadah-entire-covenant]. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these drafting rules, the [Nebraska non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/nebraska) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 > [!CAUTION]
 > **Drafting note.**
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ For modern media, technology, and sales roles, *Sisk* is the practical warning.
 >
 > One overbroad term can be fatal. Nebraska drafting should be conservative at the front end because a court may not trim the covenant after the dispute starts [^q12-gaver-no-reform-check][^q12-sisk-modern-warning].
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Nebraska. This article synthesizes Nebraska primary law and is not legal advice from a Nebraska-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Nebraska. This article synthesizes Nebraska primary law and is not legal advice from a Nebraska-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^q1-brown-three-part-test]: **Securities Acceptance Corp. v. Brown** — "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." *Securities Acceptance Corp. v. Brown, 171 Neb. 406, 417, 106 N.W.2d 456 (1960).* <https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1948918/securities-acceptance-corporation-v-brown/#:~:text=There%20are%20three%20general%20requirements,and%20oppressive%20on%20the%20employee.>
 

package/skills/{non-compete-contract-explainer → legal-explainers/non-compete-contract-explainer}/content/nevada.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 jurisdiction: "Nevada"
 slug: nevada
 countryCode: US
-snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-08"
+snapshotAsOf: "2026-06-19"
 lastReviewed: "2026-06-02"
-canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/nevada
+canonicalUrl: https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada
 license: CC BY 4.0
 stale: false
 ---
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ stale: false
 > relationship, and is not a substitute for a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
 > Laws change; verify against the canonical version before relying on it.
 >
-> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/legal/non-compete/nevada · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-08 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © UseJunior
+> **Canonical:** https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/nevada · **Snapshot as of:** 2026-06-19 · License: CC BY 4.0 · © openagreements.org
 
 # Non-Competes in Nevada[^about]
 
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ That was a statutory change from the prior *Golden Road* rule. In 2016, before N
 
 "Under Nevada law, such an unreasonable provision renders the noncompete agreement wholly unenforceable."[^q3-golden-road-old-rule]
 
-The Legislature then superseded that no-reformation rule. *Tough Turtle Turf* explains the history and the current limit: the court must revise when possible, but it need not supply missing essential terms or create a new contract.
+The Legislature then superseded that no-reformation rule. *Tough Turtle Turf* explains the history and the current limit: the court must revise when possible, but it need not supply missing essential terms or create a new contract. For a clause-by-clause pass over a specific agreement against these rules, the [Nevada non-compete review checklist](/checklists/non-compete/us/nevada) walks the full covenant suite item by item with each requirement's force level.
 
 "This provision overruled Golden Road's holding that an unreasonable noncompete covenant can never be revised."[^q3-tough-turtle-overruled]
 
@@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ NRS 613.200 separately makes it unlawful to willfully prevent a discharged or de
 >
 > Use confidentiality and trade-secret covenants for secrecy interests, not as a disguised non-compete. NRS 613.200 preserves reasonable NDAs, but it also prohibits willful interference with a former worker's ability to obtain other employment [^q12-nrs-613-200-nda][^q12-nrs-613-200-mobility].
 
-[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org) · Maintained by [UseJunior](https://usejunior.com). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Nevada. This article synthesizes Nevada primary law and is not legal advice from a Nevada-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
+[^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-02. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Nevada. This article synthesizes Nevada primary law and is not legal advice from a Nevada-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
 
 [^q1-nrs-613-195-enforceability]: **NRS 613.195** — "A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable unless the noncompetition covenant: (a) Is supported by valuable consideration; (b) Does not impose any restraint that is greater than is required for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed; (c) Does not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (d) Imposes restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the noncompetition covenant." *NRS 613.195(1).* <https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html>