Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Additionally, the law further codified the common law concerning non-compete agreements in that (1) a non-compete covenant must be no greater than is required for the protection of a legitimate business interest of the employer, (2) the non-compete covenant must not impose an undue hardship on the employee, and (3) the non-compete covenant must ...
In contract law, a non-compete clause (often NCC), restrictive covenant, or covenant not to compete (CNC), is a clause under which one party (usually an employee) agrees not to enter into or start a similar profession or trade in competition against another party (usually the employer).
In property law, land-related covenants are called "real covenants", " covenants, conditions and restrictions " (CCRs) or "deed restrictions" and are a major form of covenant, typically imposing restrictions on how the land may be used (negative covenants) or requiring a certain continuing action (affirmative covenant).
Restrictive covenants have a complex and sordid history. From the 1920s to the 1960s, racially restrictive covenants became a common tool to prevent racial, ethnic and religious minorities from ...
Davidson Bros., Inc. v. D. Katz & Sons, Inc., 643 A.2d 642 (App. Div. 1994), was a case decided by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey that first applied public policy considerations instead of the touch and concern doctrine when deciding the validity of a restrictive covenant.
In many jurisdictions, racially or ethnically restrictive covenants excluding disfavored groups such as Blacks or Jews were common until the 1940s. These were ruled unconstitutional in 1948 in the Shelley v. Kraemer case and therefore legally unenforceable.: 94 [4] [5]
A federal judge on Tuesday struck down parts of Florida’s restrictions on transition-related medical care for transgender minors and adults, declaring several statutes that ban such care ...
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), is a landmark [1] United States Supreme Court case that held that racially restrictive housing covenants cannot legally be enforced.. The case arose after an African-American family purchased a house in St. Louis that was subject to a restrictive covenant preventing "people of the Negro or Mongolian Race" from occupying the property.