# Horner International Co. v. McKoy

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · March 4, 2014 · 232 N.C. App. 559

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9803596

## Case

- **Full name:** HORNER INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, Plaintiff v. BILL M. MCKOY, Defendant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** March 4, 2014
- **Citations:** 232 N.C. App. 559; 754 S.E.2d 852; 37 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1709; 2014 N.C. App. LEXIS 240; 2014 WL 846887
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Steelman
- **Judges:** Stephens, Steelman, Davis
- **Cited by:** 24 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/9803596

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that manufacturing processes may constitute trade secrets and entering preliminary injunction based on identification of trade secrets as “various raw materials and raw material treatments; extraction, filtration, separation, and distillation techniques; and methods fo…
- holding sufficient under Rule 12(b)(6) plaintiff’s identification of “various raw materials and raw material treatments; extraction, filtration, separation, and distillation techniques; and methods for compounding of flavors, packaging, and plant utility. . . used in the produ…
- finding a “threat of misappropriation” where defendant commenced work for a competitor immediately after resigning and shortly after sending trade secret information to defendant’s personal email account

## Opinion text

STEELMAN, Judge,
concurring.
I fully concur with the legal reasoning and result set forth in the opinion, but write separately to again express concern over the state of our law of restrictive employment covenants in the context of our increasingly integrated global economy.
At the time that our law in the area of restrictive employment covenants was developed, much of our commerce was local, and restrictive covenants were imposed only to protect specific local interests. Any covenants that attempted to protect broader commercial interests were held to be invalid as an improper restraint of trade. Today’s economy is global in nature. In the instant case, plaintiff conducts a very specialized niche type of business, but its scope is worldwide, rather than being focused upon a few counties in North Carolina. Our Supreme Court should re-evaluate the law of restrictive covenants in the context of changed economic conditions to allow restrictions upon competing business activities for a specific period of time, limited to a specific, narrow type of business, but with fewer geographic limitations.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9803596. Public record. Not legal advice.