Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 real estate, a restrictive covenant is a rule or condition placed on a property that outlines what homeowners can and cannot do with their land. These covenants are legally binding and often ...
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the government to demonstrate both a compelling interest and that the law in question was narrowly tailored before it denied unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her job requirements substantially conflicted ...
Employment protection legislation (EPL) includes all types of employment protection measures, whether grounded primarily in legislation, court rulings, collectively bargained conditions of employment, or customary practice. [1] The term is common among circles of economists. Employment protection refers both to regulations concerning hiring (e ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Land Law (restrictive covenants on land are imposed upon subsequent purchasers if the covenant benefits neighbouring land) Agency and the assignment of contractual rights are permitted. Third-party insurance - A third party may claim under an insurance policy made for their benefit, even though that party did not pay the premiums.
Weekly unemployment benefits provided by the state will be increased from a maximum of $350 to $600. Gov. Cooper increases NC unemployment benefits after Helene. Here’s what’s available.
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.