Veterinary Non-Competes in Mississippi
Mississippi has no non-compete statute.
A veterinarian's covenant is instead judged under the common-law reasonableness formula from Wilson v.
Gamble (1937), and where a covenant's territory reaches too far, Redd Pest Control Co. v.
Heatherly (1963) has the court enforce only the reasonable part of that territory rather than void the covenant.
No healthcare-specific non-compete law exists in Mississippi, and there is no wage threshold or statutory duration cap.
No statute has since superseded either case.
Mechanics, not a verdict on your contract
At a glance
Permitted — judged on reasonableness
Court decisions (no governing statute) — Mississippi common law — no general non-compete statute exists; governed by Redd Pest Control Co. v. Heatherly, 248 Miss. 34, 157 So. 2d 133 (Miss. 1963), applying the reasonableness formula from Wilson v. Gamble, 180 Miss. 499, 177 So. 363, 365 (1937).
Healthcare statute reaches veterinarians: No healthcare-specific non-compete statute.
Mississippi has no non-compete statute. Covenants are judged under the reasonableness formula from Wilson v. Gamble (1937) — valid only within the territory and for the time reasonably necessary to protect the employer, without undue hardship on the employee — and, where a covenant reaches too far, Redd Pest Control Co. v. Heatherly (1963) has the court enforce the reasonable part of the described territory rather than void the covenant outright.
Not applicable. No healthcare-specific non-compete statute exists in Mississippi, and Redd Pest Control Co. v. Heatherly itself says nothing about veterinarians or any healthcare-specific carve-out. A Mississippi veterinarian's covenant is judged under the same common-law reasonableness test as any other worker's.
No wage or salary threshold. Mississippi has no non-compete statute of any kind, so no compensation-based cutoff applies to a veterinarian's covenant.
No statutory caps; Mississippi courts decide duration and geography case by case. In Redd Pest Control itself, the court enforced a covenant against competition within the city of Tupelo and a fifty-mile radius. Per the Bradley Arant Boult Cummings pocket guide (2020), other Mississippi cases have upheld 50-mile and 100-mile radius restrictions and 2- and 5-year durations; 6-year restrictions were upheld for a former business owner and, for a former employee, where the covenant limited only specific activities rather than the employee's primary employment. A provision barring competition within 50 miles of any location the employee had worked in the 24 months before termination — not a 24-month restriction itself — was found unreasonable in a separate case involving a bad-faith termination.
Mississippi courts reform an overbroad covenant down to its reasonable core rather than voiding it entirely. In Redd Pest Control, the court enjoined competition only within Tupelo and a fifty-mile radius — a specific radius the Bradley Arant Boult Cummings pocket guide's account of the same case describes as the court reforming a broader, statewide provision down to that area, and the guide states plainly that Mississippi courts will reform what they deem an unreasonable non-compete clause to include reasonable limitations.
Not stated in the sources read.
Not stated in the sources read.
Redd Pest Control Co. v. Heatherly decided November 4, 1963; still cited by later Mississippi courts (27 later opinions per Midpage's citator, most recently in 2025), with no non-compete statute enacted since.
What Mississippi’s text actually says
“an agreement restricting competition which is reasonable as to part of the territory described in the agreement but unreasonable as to the rest should be enforced as to the reasonable part.”
How Mississippi tests a veterinarian's non-compete
Mississippi has no non-compete statute.
The formula every later Mississippi non-compete opinion quotes traces to the state supreme court's 1937 decision in Wilson v.
Gamble: a non-compete is valid only within such territory and during such time as may be reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer, without imposing undue hardship on the employee.
For an associate veterinarian reading an offer, that means the covenant's actual geographic reach and duration are weighed against what the practice needs to protect, not against a fixed statutory cap.
The formula asks about the employer's interest and the employee's hardship together, not either one alone.
“non-competition agreements are only valid 'within such territory and during such time as may be reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer or principal, without imposing undue hardship on the employee or agent....'”
No healthcare-specific non-compete law reaches Mississippi veterinarians
Mississippi has not enacted a healthcare-practitioner non-compete statute of any kind.
The research behind this page found no such statute in Mississippi's code, and Redd Pest Control Co. v.
Heatherly, the leading Mississippi non-compete case, makes no mention of veterinarians, physicians, or any other licensed profession.
A Mississippi veterinarian's covenant is judged under the same common-law reasonableness test — the Wilson v.
Gamble formula, applied and partially enforced under Redd Pest Control — as any other worker's employment covenant.
No wage floor, and no fixed duration or radius cap
Mississippi's reasonableness test does not turn on how much a veterinarian earns; there is no statutory wage threshold because there is no statute at all.
Courts instead look at the facts of each case.
In Redd Pest Control, the court found a fifty-mile radius around Tupelo reasonable given where the former employee's competing activity actually reached.
The Bradley Arant Boult Cummings pocket guide (2020) records other Mississippi outcomes in the same vein: 50-mile and 100-mile radius restrictions upheld, and 2- and 5-year durations upheld; 6-year restrictions were upheld for a former business owner and, separately, for a former employee where the covenant limited only specific activities rather than the employee's primary employment.
In a different case, a provision barring competition within 50 miles of any location the employee had worked in the 24 months before termination — the 24 months measuring which locations counted, not the restriction's own length — was found unreasonable where the employee had been terminated in bad faith.
None of those figures is a cap — each turned on its own facts.
Reformation, not a full void: what happens to an overbroad covenant
Redd Pest Control addressed a covenant whose described territory was reasonable in part and unreasonable as to the rest, and held that such a covenant should be enforced as to the reasonable part rather than treated as entirely void.
Applying that rule, the court enjoined the former employee from competing only within Tupelo and a fifty-mile radius — a specific radius the Bradley Arant Boult Cummings pocket guide's account of the same case describes as the court reforming a broader, statewide provision down to that fifty-mile area, and the guide states plainly that Mississippi courts will reform what they deem an unreasonable non-compete clause to include reasonable limitations.
For a veterinarian reviewing a covenant with a wide radius, that means an overbroad territory is not necessarily a way out of the covenant altogether — a Mississippi court may instead reform it down to what it considers the reasonable core.
“We hold that the agreement should be enforced as to the reasonable part of the area, and that the chancellor should have enjoined Heatherly from competition with Redd within the City of Tupelo and a fifty-mile radius thereof within the State of Mississippi.”
What this page does not answer for Mississippi
The research behind this page reads Mississippi's leading non-compete case and a secondary pocket guide summarizing other Mississippi outcomes; neither addresses how Mississippi treats a covenant tied to selling a veterinary practice or an ownership interest, or how client or staff non-solicitation clauses are handled.
Those gaps matter most at a buy-in or buy-out, where a covenant may be drafted alongside the purchase terms.
They are left blank here rather than filled from another state's rule — take them to a Mississippi attorney with the whole agreement in hand.
Have the agreement itself reviewed
Start with the mechanics
The reasonableness test, what a radius is measured from, the access-to-care argument, and the difference between a non-compete and a non-solicitation clause are covered in the national guide to veterinary non-competes. This page covers only what is specific to Mississippi.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Mississippi have a statute governing veterinary non-competes?
No. Mississippi has no general non-compete statute.
The controlling rule comes from case law: the reasonableness formula in Wilson v.
Gamble (1937) and the partial-enforcement approach in Redd Pest Control Co. v.
Heatherly (1963).
Because this is case law rather than a statute, a Mississippi attorney who handles veterinary employment matters is the right person to read your specific covenant against it.
Does Mississippi's healthcare non-compete law protect veterinarians?
Mississippi has no healthcare-specific non-compete statute at all — not one that names veterinarians, and not one that names physicians or any other health profession.
A veterinarian's covenant is judged under the same common-law reasonableness test as any other worker's.
A Mississippi employment attorney can confirm whether any newer statute has since changed that.
What happens if a Mississippi court finds my non-compete's territory too broad?
Under Redd Pest Control Co. v.
Heatherly, a Mississippi court that finds a covenant's described territory reasonable in part and unreasonable in the rest reforms the covenant down to the reasonable part, rather than voiding the whole clause.
In that case, the court enjoined competition only within Tupelo and a fifty-mile radius — a specific radius the Bradley Arant Boult Cummings pocket guide's account of the same case describes the court reforming down from a broader, statewide provision.
Because this turns on the specific facts of your territory and your work, have a Mississippi attorney review your agreement directly.
Is there a wage or salary threshold below which a non-compete doesn't apply in Mississippi?
The sources behind this page identify no such threshold.
Mississippi has no non-compete statute, and the Wilson v.
Gamble reasonableness formula does not turn on compensation level.
That describes how the case law is written, not how it applies to your contract; a Mississippi attorney who handles veterinary employment agreements can tell you how it bears on yours.
Does selling my share of a Mississippi veterinary practice change how a non-compete is treated?
The sources read for this page do not address how Mississippi treats a covenant tied to the sale of a practice or an ownership interest, so this page does not answer it.
A buy-in or buy-out agreement may carry its own covenant, drafted alongside the purchase terms rather than the employment terms.
Before signing one, have a Mississippi attorney who handles veterinary practice transactions review the covenant and the purchase agreement together.
More Mississippi Non-Compete Resources
Sources
- Redd Pest Control Co. v. Heatherly, 248 Miss. 34, 157 So. 2d 133 (Miss. 1963) — Midpage Legal Research (retrieved 2026-09-16)
- Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP — Mississippi Non-Compete Law Pocket Guide (2020) (retrieved 2026-09-16)
Sourced from Mississippi’s own statute or leading court decisions (see the citations above). Verified September 2026; the governing provision was last amended Redd Pest Control Co. v. Heatherly decided November 4, 1963; still cited by later Mississippi courts (27 later opinions per Midpage's citator, most recently in 2025), with no non-compete statute enacted since. This page is general information, not legal advice.