Case Name: PULSE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Petitioner v. Peter NOTARO and MK Precision LLC, Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2012-01-27
Citations: 614 Pa. 318
Docket Number: No. 626 MAL 2011
Parties: PULSE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Petitioner v. Peter NOTARO and MK Precision LLC, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 614
Pages: 318–318

Head Matter:
36 A.3d 1096
PULSE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Petitioner v. Peter NOTARO and MK Precision LLC, Respondents.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jan. 27, 2012.

Opinion:
AMENDED ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 27th day of January, 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:
Does a Court act improperly by refusing to enforce a restrictive covenant contained in an employment agreement solely because the restrictive covenant was not expressly referenced in a non-binding initial offer letter, and the offer letter conditioned employment on the execution of the employment agreement?