O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 13-8-50 (2019)

(For effective date, see note.) Legislative findings

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The General Assembly finds that reasonable restrictive covenants contained in employment and commercial contracts serve the legitimate purpose of protecting legitimate business interests and creating an environment that is favorable to attracting commercial enterprises to Georgia and keeping existing businesses within the state. Further, the General Assembly desires to provide statutory guidance so that all parties to such agreements may be certain of the validity and enforceability of such provisions and may know their rights and duties according to such provisions.

History

(Code 1981, § 13-8-50, enacted by Ga. L. 2009, p. 231, § 3/HB 173.)

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - For information as to the effective date of this Code section, see the delayed effective date note at the beginning of this article.

Law reviews. - For article, ‘‘Georgia Gets Competitive,’’ see 15 (No. 4) Ga. St. B.J. 13 (2009).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 2012–2026 · leading case: Motorsports of Conyers, LLC v. Burbach, 892 S.E.2d 719 (Ga. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Motorsports of Conyers, LLC v. Burbach, 892 S.E.2d 719 (Ga. 2023). · cites it 8× “OCGA § 13-8-50 et seq. Although the GRCA and a corresponding constitutional amendment set up a much more 2 permissive and flexible approach to enforcing restrictive covenants, these changes did not disturb the well-settled understanding that restrictive covenants that are…”
Cmgrp, Inc. v. Maggie Gallant, 806 S.E.2d 16 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “2 In her petition, Gallant correctly noted that the 2011 act revising Georgia law related to restrictive covenants in contracts (OCGA § 13-8-50 et seq . ) does not apply to contracts entered into before May 11, 2011.”
Lapolla Indus., Inc. v. Hess, 750 S.E.2d 467 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “The 2011 act revising Georgia law related to restrictive covenants in contracts (OCGA § 13-8-50 etseq.) does not apply to contracts entered into before May 11,2011.”
DJR Assocs., LLC v. Hammonds, 241 F. Supp. 3d 1208 (N.D. Ala. 2017). · cites it 2× “See Ga. Code Ann. § 13-8-50 et seq. As a matter of public policy, § 13-8-50 states that “reasonable restrictive covenants contained in employment and commercial contracts serve the legitimate purpose of protecting legitimate business interests and creating an environment that is…”
Burson Et Al. v. Milton Hall Surgical Assocs., LLC., 806 S.E.2d 239 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “The current statutory provisions governing enforcement of restrictive covenants in employment contracts, *242 OCGA § 13-8-50 et seq. became effective May 11, 2011, and apply to "contracts entered into on and after [May 11, 2011,] and shall not apply in actions determining the…”
Patricia Kennedy v. the Shave Barber Co., LLC, 822 S.E.2d 606 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8× “Kennedy appeals, contending that the trial court erred in applying Georgia's Restrictive Covenants Act, OCGA § 13-8-50, et seq. (the "Act"). Finding no error, we affirm the trial court's findings related to the restrictive covenants and its grant of an interlocutory injunction…”
Carson v. Obor Holding Co., 734 S.E.2d 477 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 13-8-50 et seq. However, Ga. L. 2011, p.”
Crump Ins. Servs. v. All Risks, Ltd., 727 S.E.2d 131 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “NOTES [1] Crump, Feldhaus, and Yoss filed an action on the Feldhaus and Yoss agreements, and Crump and Duran filed a separate action on the Duran agreement.”
Carpetcare Multiservices, LLC v. Carle., 819 S.E.2d 894 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Additionally, "[a]ny restrictive covenant not in compliance with [ OCGA § 13-8-50 through 13-8-59 ] is unlawful and is void and unenforceable; provided, however, that a court may modify a covenant that is otherwise void and unenforceable so long as the modification does not…”
Charles Baldwin v. Express Oil Change, LLC, 87 F.4th 1292 (11th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “At the heart of the merits inquiry in this case is the Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act, O.C.G.A. § 13-8-50 et seq. Enacted in 2011, the GRCA provides a statutory framework for determining the enforceability of Georgia-law restrictive covenants.”
Domtar AI Inc. v. J.D. Irving, Ltd., 43 F. Supp. 3d 635 (E.D.N.C. 2014). “The parties may make the appropriate motions at the appropriate times in that matter.”
HCC Ins. Holdings, Inc. v. Flowers, 237 F. Supp. 3d 1341 (N.D. Ga. 2017). · cites it 2× “In November 2010, Georgia voters approved a constitutional améndment that substantially altered Georgia’s public policy on restrictive covenants.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.