McNeal Group, Inc. v. Restivo

311 S.E.2d 831, 252 Ga. 112
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 9, 1984
Docket40330
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 311 S.E.2d 831 (McNeal Group, Inc. v. Restivo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McNeal Group, Inc. v. Restivo, 311 S.E.2d 831, 252 Ga. 112 (Ga. 1984).

Opinion

Bell, Justice.

This case involves the validity of a restrictive covenant in an employment contract. John Restivo worked for McNeal Group, Inc. (McNeal) from November of 1981 to March of 1983. In February 1983 Restivo and McNeal entered into an employment contract, the relevant part of which provides that “for a period of one year following termination of his employment by Employer, he (Employee) will not engage in any business competitive with Employer in any capacity whatsoever. . . .” Restivo left McNeal in March 1983 and in April 1983 he began work for another company. McNeal subsequently filed suit seeking to enjoin Restivo from violating the restrictive covenant. The trial court refused to grant injunctive relief, and McNeal has appealed. We affirm.

By prohibiting Restivo from working for any competitor in any capacity, the restrictive covenant in question fails to specify with particularity the activities which the employee is prohibited from performing and is therefore too indefinite to be enforceable. Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Walker, 251 Ga. 536 (2)(c) (307 SE2d 914) (1983); Wilson v. Center Brothers, Inc., 250 Ga. 156 (296 SE2d 589) (1982); Howard Schultz &c., Inc. v. Broniec, 239 Ga. 181 (2) (236 SE2d 265) (1977). Moreover, this same provision renders the covenant overbroad and thus unenforceable because it “imposes a greater limitation upon the employee than is necessary for the protection of the employer.” Howard Schultz &c., Inc. v. Broniec, supra, 184; Horne v. Drachman, 247 Ga. 802, 805 (280 SE2d 338) (1981).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Marshall, *113 P. J., who dissents. Decided February 9, 1984. Payne & Hendricks, Ben F. Hendricks, for appellant. John G. Restivo, pro se.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

J.E. Hanger, Inc. v. Scussel
937 F. Supp. 1546 (M.D. Alabama, 1996)
Janice Doty Unlimited, Inc. v. Stoecker
684 F. Supp. 973 (N.D. Illinois, 1988)
National Consultants, Inc. v. Burt
366 S.E.2d 344 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1988)
Jarrett v. Hamilton
346 S.E.2d 875 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)
National Teen-Ager Co. v. Scarborough
330 S.E.2d 711 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1985)
Pierce v. Industrial Boiler Co.
315 S.E.2d 423 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
311 S.E.2d 831, 252 Ga. 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcneal-group-inc-v-restivo-ga-1984.