Rooney v. Jackson & Coker, Inc.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Rooney v. Jackson & Coker, Inc.

409 S.E.2d 522, 261 Ga. 533, 6 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1472, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 370

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 5, 1991

DocketS91X0695

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 409 S.E.2d 522 (Rooney v. Jackson & Coker, Inc.) 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

Rooney v. Jackson & Coker, Inc., 409 S.E.2d 522, 261 Ga. 533, 6 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1472, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 370 (Ga. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Fletcher, Justice.

Jackson & Coker, Inc., filed an action for injunctive relief under OCGA § 13-8-2.1 (the Act) seeking enforcement of post-employment restrictive covenants contained in its employment contract with its former employee Mark Rooney. In this cross-appeal,¹ Rooney contends that the trial court erred in holding that the Act does not violate the constitutional provision against restraint of trade in Art. Ill, Sec. VI, Par. V (c) of the 1983 Georgia Constitution. We agree.

This issue is controlled by our decision in Jackson & Coker, Inc. v. Hart, 261 Ga. 371 (405 SE2d 253) (1991). In that case, we held the Act unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the prohibition against the restraint of trade in the 1983 Constitution. The trial court erred in holding to the contrary. We reverse that portion of the trial court’s order.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Clarke, C. J., who dissents.

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

Fletcher, Justice.

Jackson & Coker, Inc., filed an action for injunctive relief under OCGA § 13-8-2.1 (the Act) seeking enforcement of post-employment restrictive covenants contained in its employment contract with its former employee Mark Rooney. In this cross-appeal,¹ Rooney contends that the trial court erred in holding that the Act does not violate the constitutional provision against restraint of trade in Art. Ill, Sec. VI, Par. V (c) of the 1983 Georgia Constitution. We agree.

This issue is controlled by our decision in Jackson & Coker, Inc. v. Hart, 261 Ga. 371 (405 SE2d 253) (1991). In that case, we held the Act unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the prohibition against the restraint of trade in the 1983 Constitution. The trial court erred in holding to the contrary. We reverse that portion of the trial court’s order.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Clarke, C. J., who dissents.

A.L. Williams & Associates Massachusetts Indemnity and Life Insurance Company, Counter-Defendants v. Randy Stelk Timothy Hunter Willard H. Colson, Jr., D/B/A Mid-American Investors, Counter-Claimants, Investors Life Insurance Company of Nebraska, Amerishare Investors, Inc., A.L. Williams & Associates, Inc., Massachusetts Indemnity and Life Insurance Company, Plaintiffs-Counter v. Randy Stelk, Timothy Hunter, Defendants-Counter Claimant-Appellant, Willard H. Colson, Jr., D/B/A Mid-American Investors, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant, Investors Life Insurance Company of Nebraska, Defendant-Counter Amerishare Investors, Inc., Defendant-Counter

960 F.2d 942 (Eleventh Circuit, 1992)

A.L. Williams & Associates v. Stelk

960 F.2d 942 (Eleventh Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 S.E.2d 522, 261 Ga. 533, 6 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1472, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rooney-v-jackson-coker-inc-ga-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack