Riddle v. Geo-Hydro Engineers

7 Citing cases

  1. Malice v. Coloplast Corporation

    278 Ga. App. 395 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 9 times

    But restrictive covenants in employment contracts may work only a partial restraint of trade, and they are enforceable if they are reasonable, founded on valuable consideration, reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business interests, and do not unduly prejudice the public's interest. Riddle v. Geo-Hydro Engineers, 254 Ga. App. 119, 120 ( 561 SE2d 456) (2002). The provision at issue is found in paragraph 6.2 of Malice's employment contract. It provides, in pertinent part, that if Coloplast decides to exercise its right to invoke the clause, after notice, for two years after termination of his employment Malice

  2. Trujillo v. Great Southern Equipment

    289 Ga. App. 474 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in absence of either a territorial restriction or a restriction limited to customers with whom former employee had contact, nonsolicitation provision was overbroad and unenforceable

    Accordingly, we reverse that part of the court's injunction order supported by these erroneous legal conclusions, but we otherwise affirm the order. Riddle v. Geo-Hydro Engineers, 254 Ga. App. 119, 121 ( 561 SE2d 456) (2002). We note that our finding that the agreement's nonsolicitation and noncompetition clauses were unenforceable has no bearing on the issue of whether the agreement's confidentiality clause was enforceable.

  3. Dent Wizard International Corp. v. Brown

    272 Ga. App. 553 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 12 times
    Striking down a non-compete clause that contained a four-county territorial restriction, when the former employee did not work in all of those counties

    Georgia does not follow the "blue pencil" doctrine of severability in construing employment contracts. Therefore, because one restrictive covenant in Brown's agreement is unenforceable, they are all unenforceable. Riddle v. Geo-Hydro Engineers, 254 Ga. App. 119, 121 ( 561 SE2d 456) (2002); Advance Technology Consultants v. Road-Trac, 250 Ga. App. at 320-321(2). Judgment affirmed. Ruffin, C.J., and Bernes, J., concur.

  4. Waldeck v. Curtis 1000, Inc.

    261 Ga. App. 590 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 18 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding a non-solicitation covenant was unreasonable because it overprotects the employer's interests and "unreasonably impacts on [the employee] and on the public's ability to choose the business it prefers"

    The trial court erred in granting the injunction based on the unenforceable non-solicitation paragraph of the agreement. Pregler, supra; see Riddle v. Geo-Hydro Engineers, Inc., 254 Ga. App. 119, 121 ( 561 S.E.2d 456) (2002).Judgment reversed.

  5. Banc Card Ga., LLC v. United Cmty. Bank

    No.: 3:14-CV-300-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn. Jul. 24, 2014)   Cited 2 times

    Yet, the interest in upholding the sanctity of contracts may still be protected without the imposition of a preliminary injunction. In addition, the Court recognizes that, under Georgia law, restraints on trade are disfavored. See, e.g., Riddle v. Geo-Hyrdo Eng'rs, Inc., 561 S.E.2d 456, 458 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) ("'A contract in general restraint of trade or which tends to lessen competition is against public policy and is void.'" (citation omitted)).

  6. Exceptional Marketing Group, Inc. v. Jones

    749 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (N.D. Ga. 2010)   Cited 17 times
    Granting plaintiff's motion to strike affidavits filed with defendant's reply brief because they merely embellished facts presented in defendant's opening brief in support of motion to dismiss

    In Georgia, nonsolicitation agreements are invalid if they do not "limit the purpose for which [the employee] may not solicit [the employer's] clients."Riddle v. Geo-Hydro Eng'rs, Inc., 254 Ga. App. 119, 120 (2002). Here, the nonsolicitation covenant limits the purpose for which Jones may not solicit EMG customers.

  7. Murphree v. Yancey Brothers Co.

    311 Ga. App. 744 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 14 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that an employee's agreement not to “in any way, directly or indirectly, solicit, divert, or take away, or attempt to solicit, divert or take away” the company's clients “prohibited [the former employee] from initiating affirmative action to compete ... by contacting former customers” but “would not have precluded him from accepting unsolicited business from the forbidden clients”

    CompareHoward Schultz & Assocs. of the Southeast, Inc. v. Broniec, 239 Ga. 181, 184(2), 236 S.E.2d 265 (1977) (holding, in context of a covenant not to compete, that it was unreasonable because the employee was prohibited from working in any capacity for a competitor and because it failed “to specify with any particularity the nature and kind of business which is or will be competitive with the employer”). FN19. CompareRiddle v. Geo–Hydro Engineers, Inc., 254 Ga.App. 119, 120, 561 S.E.2d 456 (2002) (holding that nonsolicitation covenant was overbroad when it did not limit purpose for which former employee could not solicit clients, prohibited former employee from selling unrelated items, and went beyond what was necessary to protect former employer's business interests); Advance Technology Consultants, Inc. v. RoadTrac, LLC, 250 Ga.App. 317, 322(4), 551 S.E.2d 735 (2001) (holding that covenants were unenforceable when “in neither [was] the prohibition against contacting or pursuing [former employer's] clients restricted to efforts competitive with [former employer], but each simply prohibit[ed] contact for any purpose” (emphasis supplied)). FN20. SeeBaggett, 231 Ga.App. at 298(3)(c), 498 S.E.2d 346; see alsoSysco Food Svcs. of Atlanta, Inc. v. Chupp, 225 Ga.App. 584, 588(2), 484 S.E.2d 323 (1997) (“An ‘indirect’ solicitation occurs when the former employee undertakes ‘some affirmative action on his part that could be considered a solicitation in the broadest possible sense.’ ”