## Facts

- Petersen Flying Service, Inc. operated an aerial application business spraying agricultural chemicals in Nebraska and was owned and controlled by Charles O. Petersen.
- Douglas Boisen, a lifelong Kearney County resident and farmer, obtained pilot training and later worked about one year for Petersen as a spray pilot.
- Boisen signed an employment contract containing a post-employment covenant not to compete.
- During employment, Boisen’s duties were operational (flying spray aircraft), not sales or customer solicitation; customer contact generally originated from prospective customers.
- The employer did not maintain proprietary trade secrets or a confidential customer list tied to Boisen’s work.
- After Petersen terminated Boisen’s employment, Boisen filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that the noncompete was invalid.

## Issues

1. Whether the post-employment covenant not to compete was a reasonable restraint necessary to protect a legitimate business interest under Nebraska law.
2. Whether, given undisputed contract terms and surrounding facts, enforceability of the covenant presented a question of law subject to independent appellate review.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s declaratory judgment invalidating the covenant.
- Because the contract terms and relevant surrounding facts were undisputed, the court treated contract construction and enforceability as questions of law and reached its own independent conclusion.
- The court held the covenant unreasonable and unenforceable because it exceeded what was necessary to protect any legitimate interest of Petersen Flying Service.

## Legal Principles

- When contract terms and the facts bearing on the parties’ intent are undisputed, contract construction is a question of law reviewed independently on appeal.
- A post-employment restrictive covenant is enforceable only if it is reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest (such as protectable customer goodwill, confidential customer information, or trade secrets).
- The restriction must be no broader than reasonably necessary in time, geographic scope, and restricted activities.
- A covenant that functions primarily to suppress ordinary competition, without a demonstrated protectable interest, is an unreasonable restraint of trade and is void as against public policy.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enforce the noncompete because the employer did not show trade secrets, confidential customer information, or customer relationships attributable to the employee, making the restraint broader than necessary and an invalid restraint on the employee’s ability to work.


Boisen v. Petersen Flying Serv., Inc., 383 N.W.2d 29 (Neb. 1986)