# Central Indiana Podiatry, P.C. v. Krueger

> Indiana Supreme Court · March 11, 2008 · 882 N.E.2d 723

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9505101

## Case

- **Full name:** CENTRAL INDIANA PODIATRY, P.C., Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. Kenneth KRUEGER, Meridian Health Group, P.C., Appellee (Defendant Below)
- **Court:** Indiana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 11, 2008
- **Citations:** 882 N.E.2d 723; 27 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 523; 2008 Ind. LEXIS 203; 2008 WL 642529
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Shepard
- **Judges:** Boehm, Dickson, Rucker, Shepard, Sullivan
- **Cited by:** 60 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9505101

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting the defendant’s argument that physician covenants not to compete should be declared void as against public policy, and noting that the Tennessee legislature, in the wake of Murfreesboro Medical Clinic, had enacted § 63-1-148 to “permit[] physician noncompetition agre…
- noting Indiana has “long held that noncompetition covenants in employment contracts are in restraint of trade and disfavored by the law”
- holding that the geographic restriction was unreasonable under the facts of the case
- noting that it would be “virtually impossible to quantify the profits diverted by Krueger’s move” to a different podiatry practice

## Opinion text

SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
Krueger practiced podiatry with Central Indiana in both the far northern part of Marion County and in southern Hamilton County under a contract providing that he would not compete against them in either county for two years after the business relationship ended.
Thereafter, Krueger left Central and set up shop in Hamilton County just ten minutes from his former main site of practice on 86th Street in Marion County.
The competitive reality is that these two areas function as one for commercial purposes. That a county line divides these two locations means very little to most customers or purveyors of service, and I wouldn’t regard it as grounds for a court voiding a contract by which two relatively sophisticated parties ordered their commercial relationship.
DICKSON, J., joins.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9505101. Public record. Not legal advice.