O.C.G.A.
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.
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. 2011, p. 399, § 4/HB 30.)
Annotations
Law reviews. - For article, "Contracts: Illegal and Void Contracts Generally," see 28 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 21 (2011). For annual survey on labor and employment law, see 64 Mercer L. Rev. 173 (2012). For annual survey on labor and employment law, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 141 (2017).
For note, "Balancing the Scales: Reforming Georgia's Common Law in Evaluating Restrictive Covenants Ancillary to Employment Contracts," 46 Ga. L. Rev. 1117 (2012).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Enforcement of covenants would be against Georgia law and public policy. - Trial court did not err by refusing to enforce the forum selection and choice of law clauses requiring Texas law to govern an employment contract and by dismissing the complaint because a Texas court applying Texas law would enforce non-compete covenants that were unenforceable under applicable Georgia law and public policy. Lapolla Indus. v. Hess, 325 Ga. App. 256, 750 S.E.2d 467 (2013).
In a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration as to the enforceability of non-compete clauses in an employment contract, the trial court properly granted the competitor judgment on the pleadings because the trial court correctly found that the pleadings showed that the lack of any limit on the scope of the restricted work or the solicitation of former customers were void and unenforceable under the non-severability rule as a matter of law. Lapolla Indus. v. Hess, 325 Ga. App. 256, 750 S.E.2d 467 (2013).
Cited in Crump Ins. Servs. v. All Risks, Ltd., 315 Ga. App. 490, 727 S.E.2d 131 (2012).
Notes of Decisions
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.”
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.”
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.