Opinion ID: 1348792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: preliminary and permanent injunctions.

Text: The Defendants claim the court erred in issuing the preliminary, supplemental preliminary and permanent injunctions. However, Defendants mistakenly base this claim on SDCL 21-8-2(5) which provides in part: An injunction cannot be granted: .... (5) To prevent the breach of a contract, the performance of which would not be specifically enforced. Under SDCL 21-9-2(1), obligations to render personal service will not be specifically enforced. The agreements in this case are not obligations to render personal service but obligations restricting competition, permitted under SDCL 53-9-11, after termination of personal service. Additionally, injunctive relief is expressly authorized under SDCL 37-29-2(a) when actual or threatened misappropriation occurs and may be continued for an additional reasonable period of time in order to eliminate commercial advantage[.] Therefore, Defendants' argument is without merit and the court's issuance of the injunctions was not error.