clause in the agreement is unenforceable because it is unreasonable under M.C.L. § 445.774a. According to Michigan law, a non-compete agreement is enforceable provided it is reasonable with respect to du ration, geographical area, and the line of business is seeks to limit. Defendant argues that the agreement is unreasonable with respect to all three areas. However, Lowry provides sufficient support to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its claim that this court should uphold the non-compete agreement. As to duration, courts have upheld time periods of six months to three years. See, e.g., Walling, 851 F.Supp. at 847 (six months); Van Steenis, 784 F.Supp. at 1274 (twelve- months); Stubblefield v. Siloam Springs Newspapers, Inc., 590 F.Supp. 1032 (W.D.Ark.l984)(<HOLDING>). Given the highly competitive nature of the
holding that under new york law employment is atwill unless the duration of an employment contract is set forth explicitly holding covenant in an employment agreement executed some 12 years after the initial taking of employment was not incident to the taking of employment holding that noncompete provisions survived the expiration of an employment agreement where 1 the contract expressly provided that the provisions would continue to apply if the employee continued working and 2 the noncompete clause expressly stated it would continue to be in effect after the expiration or termination of employment holding that under arkansas law employment is atwill unless personnel manual or employment agreement contains express provision that employee shall not be discharged except for cause holding that under arkansas law maximum duration of noncompete clause incident to employment agreement is three years