Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Alaska Airlines Inc. v. Sweat (1)
- Alston Studios Inc. v. Lloyd V. Gress & Associates (1)
- Capital Bakers Inc. v. Townsend (1)
- Clark v. Moore (1)
- Eastern Business Forms Inc. v. Kistler (1)
-
- Edgecomb v. Edmonston (1)
- Eldridge v. Johnston (1)
- Fast-Tracking (1)
- Food Management Inc. v. Blue Ribbon Beef Park (1)
- Freudenthal v. Espey (1)
- General Assembly (1)
- Kaumagraph Co. v. Stampagraph Co. (1)
- Lackey v. Brooks (1)
- Lareau v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co (1)
- Love v. Miami Laundry Co (1)
- Massie v. Dudley (1)
- Meissel v. Finley (1)
- Miller v. Sohns (1)
- National Homes Corp. v. Lester Industries (1)
- Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Jewel Tea Co (1)
- Orkin Exterminating Co. of Arkansas v. Murrell (1)
- Payseur v. RudisiIl (1)
- Redd Pest Control Company v. Heatherly (1)
- Richardson v. Paxton Co. (1)
- River Garden Farms v. Superior Court (1)
- Seaview Hospital v. Medicenters of America (1)
- Smith v. Fenner (1)
- Twohy v. Harris (1)
- Uniform Act (1)
- Victor Chemical Works v. Iliff (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Contracts
Employee Covenants Not To Compete: Where Does Virginia Stand?, Ann R. Bergan, Kenneth E. Chadwick, Hugh T. Harrison Ii, Barrett E. Pope
Employee Covenants Not To Compete: Where Does Virginia Stand?, Ann R. Bergan, Kenneth E. Chadwick, Hugh T. Harrison Ii, Barrett E. Pope
University of Richmond Law Review
Courts for some time now have been forced to deal with the validity of covenants not to compete as contained in employment contracts. Considered to be a restraint against trade, these covenants under common law were viewed with disfavor, if not hostility, both nationally and in the Commonwealth of Virginia, as being contrary to the American ideals of individual freedom, competition, and the free flow of commerce. As such they were seldom upheld. It was only after the courts recognized that employers had legitimate concerns and interests worthy of protections that reasonable covenants not to compete began to be enforced …
Design-Build Contracts In Virginia, Kevin B. Lynch
Design-Build Contracts In Virginia, Kevin B. Lynch
University of Richmond Law Review
Construction law is a varied and intricate outgrowth of the innumer- able complex relationships inherent in any building project. The role of the architect, once the master builder, has undergone and continues to undergo a redefinition. Due to recent changes in the construction industry, especially the development of construction management and design-build concepts, the regulatory framework within which the building project operates is, in many states, in need of reform. The purpose of this comment will be to examine the impact of the development of design- build concepts on the traditional model of owner, architect, and contractor relationships and to …
The Covenant Not To Sue: Virginia's Effort To Bury The Common Law Rule Regarding The Release Of Joint Tortfeasors, Linda Flory Rigsby
The Covenant Not To Sue: Virginia's Effort To Bury The Common Law Rule Regarding The Release Of Joint Tortfeasors, Linda Flory Rigsby
University of Richmond Law Review
The 1979 Virginia General Assembly turned the last shovel of earth onto the grave of the common law "release rule"' by adopting the covenant not to sue as a viable settlement device in joint tortfeasor actions. By this statutory adoption, Virginia became the last state to recognize, either by statute or judicial mandate, that a properly drawn covenant not to sue can act to release one or more tortfeasors without automatically releasing all those tortfeasors liable for the same injury or wrongful death. Judicial interpretations of the covenant not to sue, particularly those of California, Michigan and North Carolina, will …