Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 13-8-2.1 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 13-8-2.1 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 13-8-2.1

TITLE 13 CONTRACTS

Section 8. Illegal and Void Contracts Generally, 13-8-1 through 13-8-59.

ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

13-8-2.1. Contracts in partial restraint of trade.

Repealed by Ga. L. 2011, p. 399, § 3/HB 30, effective May 11, 2011.

Editor's notes.

- This Code section was based on Code 1981, § 13-8-2.1, enacted by Ga. L. 1990, p. 1676, § 2; Ga. L. 1991, p. 94, § 13; Ga. L. 2009, p. 231, § 2/HB 173.

Ga. L. 2011, p. 399, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "During the 2009 legislative session the General Assembly enacted HB 173 (Act No. 64, Ga. L. 2009, p. 231), which was a bill that dealt with the issue of restrictive covenants in contracts and which was contingently effective on the passage of a constitutional amendment. During the 2010 legislative session the General Assembly enacted HR 178 (Ga. L. 2010, p. 1260), the constitutional amendment necessary for the statutory language of HB 173 (Act No. 64, Ga. L. 2009, p. 231), and the voters ratified the constitutional amendment on November 2, 2010. It has been suggested by certain parties that because of the effective date provisions of HB 173 (Act No. 64, Ga. L. 2009, p. 231), there may be some question about the validity of that legislation. It is the intention of this Act to remove any such uncertainty by substantially reenacting the substantive provisions of HB 173 (Act No. 64, Ga. L. 2009, p. 231), but the enactment of this Act should not be taken as evidence of a legislative determination that HB 173 (Act No. 64, Ga. L. 2009, p. 231) was in fact invalid."

Ga. L. 2011, p. 399, § 5, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part, that the repeal of this Code section shall apply to contracts entered into on and after May 11, 2011, and shall not apply in actions determining the enforceability of restrictive covenants entered into before May 11, 2011.

Law reviews.

- For note, "Balancing the Scales: Reforming Georgia's Common Law in Evaluating Restrictive Covenants Ancillary to Employment Contracts," 46 Ga. L. Rev. 1117 (2012).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2.1

Total Results: 5  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Jackson & Coker, Inc. v. Hart, 405 S.E.2d 253 (Ga. 1991).

Cited 25 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 27, 1991 | 261 Ga. 371, 6 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1000

...Subsequently appellees left the employment of Jackson & Coker and began working for a competitor. They filed this action for declaratory judgment seeking a determination that the covenants not to compete in their employment contracts are unenforceable and that OCGA § 13-8-2.1 (the Act) is unconstitutional insofar as it relates to restrictive covenants ancillary to employment contracts....
...ne that authorizes contracts and agreements which may have the effect of or which are intended to have the effect of defeating or lessening competition or encouraging monopoly. Our basis for this conclusion is found in the express provisions of OCGA § 13-8-2.1(g)(1), which read as follows: Every court of competent jurisdiction shall enforce through any appropriate remedy every contract in partial restraint of trade that is not against the policy of the law or otherwise unlawful....
...n, this purported Act of authorization is "unlawful and void." 2. The case is remanded to the trial court for a determination of whether the restrictive covenants in question are enforceable under the law as it existed prior to the enactment of OCGA § 13-8-2.1....
Copy

Hamrick v. Kelley, 392 S.E.2d 518 (Ga. 1990).

Cited 16 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 21, 1990 | 260 Ga. 307

...That resolution being in conflict with that decided upon by the majority, I must respectfully dissent. NOTES [1] We note that the General Assembly has addressed the area of restrictive covenants by the enactment of HB 744, Ga. L. 1990, p.___et seq., codified as OCGA § 13-8-2.1, effective July 1, 1990.
Copy

Atlanta Bread Co. Int'l v. Lupton-Smith, 679 S.E.2d 722 (Ga. 2009).

Cited 13 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 29, 2009 | 285 Ga. 587, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 2194

...Hart, 261 Ga. 371, 405 S.E.2d 253 (1991) supports our jurisprudence that restrictive covenants must be reasonable as to time, territory and scope. We believe that it does. In Jackson & Coker, Inc. v. Hart , this Court considered the constitutionality of OCGA § 13-8-2.1 as it related to a restrictive covenant in an employment contract. We found that the entire statute, including OCGA § 13-8-2.1(d) [2] which referenced franchise agreements, was unconstitutional as it was an impermissible exercise of legislative authority due to the fact it authorized agreements which had the effect of lessening competition without considering reasonableness....
...Accordingly, the Court of Appeals did not err when it affirmed the trial court's finding that the in-term restraint was unenforceable. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. NOTES [1] Appellees include Mr. Lupton-Smith and his five franchise companies. [2] OCGA § 13-8-2.1(d) provided that "[a]ny restriction that operates during the term of [a] ......
Copy

Motorsports of Conyers, LLC v. Burbach, 892 S.E.2d 719 (Ga. 2023).

Cited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 6, 2023 | 317 Ga. 206

...In that Code section, the legislature approved the enforcement of “contracts in partial restraint of trade”—defined as “[c]ontracts that restrain in a reasonable manner any party thereto from exercising any trade, business, or employment.” Former OCGA § 13-8-2.1 (a), enacted at Ga....
...See also Crum v. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co., 315 Ga. 67, 77 (2) (c) (ii) (880 SE2d 205) (2022) (“we presume that the legislature enacted the new statute ‘with full knowledge of’ the extant body of decisional law”). Soon after its enactment, OCGA § 13-8-2.1 was declared 19 unconstitutional because its provision allowing for the “partial enforcement” of unreasonable restrictive covenants (i.e., blue- penciling) would have “breathe[d] life into” c...
Copy

Rooney v. Jackson & Coker, Inc., 261 Ga. 533 (Ga. 1991).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 5, 1991 | 409 S.E.2d 522, 6 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1472

Fletcher, Justice. Jackson & Coker, Inc., filed an action for injunctive relief under OCGA § 13-8-2.1 (the Act) seeking enforcement of post-employment restrictive covenants contained in its employment contract with its former employee Mark Rooney....