Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §13-8-53, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 399, § 4/HB 30; Ga. L. 2012, p. 775, § 13/HB 942.)
The 2012 amendment, effective May 1, 2012, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, revised punctuation in paragraph (c)(1).
- Non-solicitation covenant in physicians' pre-2011 employment contracts would prevent the physicians from having any communication with the employer's patients, even if those patients sought out the physicians, which was unreasonable and unenforceable, but geographic limitations were not unreasonable and were enforceable. Burson v. Milton Hall Surgical Associates, LLC, 343 Ga. App. 159, 806 S.E.2d 239 (2017).
- Because the court had already found that one of the sub-parts of the non-compete was unenforceable under Georgia law, none of the restrictive covenants contained in the non-compete were enforceable. Boone v. Corestaff Support Servs., 805 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (N.D. Ga. 2011).
Because a Georgia House Bill was unconstitutional and void when it was enacted, the General Assembly did not act to change Georgia's public policy on restrictive covenants in employment contracts. Therefore, a district court did not err in applying Georgia law to find such restrictive covenants in a particular employment contract were unenforceable. Becham v. Synthes USA, F.3d (11th Cir. June 4, 2012)(Unpublished).
Non-solicitation clauses in parties' employment agreement were written overly broad, but because the statute commanded courts to construe them narrowly, they were enforceable; however, the non-competition clause was void and unenforceable because the clause lacked a geographic limitation. Lifebrite Labs., LLC v. Cooksey, F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Ga. Dec. 9, 2016).
- In an agent's suit against an insurance company seeking to invalidate restrictive covenants in an agreement to sell insurance products, the court held that the trial court properly denied the agent's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to a confidential and proprietary information provision because it could not be said as a matter of law that the information defined as such did not constitute a trade secret or merely confidential information relating to the company's business. Holland Ins. Group, LLC v. Senior Life Ins. Co., 329 Ga. App. 834, 766 S.E.2d 187 (2014).
Total Results: 2
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-09-04
Snippet: and scope of prohibited activities.” OCGA § 13-8-53 (a). In this case, we focus on the requirement
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-09-06
Snippet: activities.” Id. at 191 (1) (quoting OCGA §§ 13-8-53 (a), 13-8-54 (b)). In a footnote, the court distinguished