Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the impact on the employee will depend on factors like the nature of the employer's business and the competitive risk posed by the employee. Wis. Stat. § 103.465 Applies to the NSE Provision ¶ 14. As a preliminary matter, we address Mani-towoc's insistence that its nonsolicitation provision is not subject to Wis. Stat. § 103.465. The statute itself proclaims that it applies to a "covenant. . . not to compete with his or her employer. . . during... or after" one's employment. Id. The provision also calls such covenants a "restraint." Id. Case law has made clear that § 103.465 applies to any covenant between an employer and an employee that "seeks to restrain competition" or operates as a "trade restraint." See Tatge v. Chambers & Owen, Inc., 219 Wis. 2d 99, 112, 579 N.W.2d 217 (1998) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 15. Manitowoc agrees with this basic 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction under the private cause of action provision of the act (B) holding that a nondisclosure provision is subject to  103465 (C) holding that defendants testimony that he did not see a provision in the agreement because the plaintiffcounterparty failed to direct him to the provision was insufficient as a matter of law to establish fraud and defendant was therefore bound to the terms of the provision (D) holding that where there is a conflict between statutes the more recent statute is controlling and a specific provision prevails over a general provision relating to the same subject matter (E) holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them
Output (English): holding that defendants testimony that he did not see a provision in the agreement because the plaintiffcounterparty failed to direct him to the provision was insufficient as a matter of law to establish fraud and defendant was therefore bound to the terms of the provision