The Enforceability of Noncompete Clauses in the Medical Profession: A Review by the Workforce Committee and the Medicolegal Committee of the Council of State Neurosurgical Societies

Neurosurgery ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristin Huntoon ◽  
Jason Stacy ◽  
Susie Cioffi ◽  
Karin Swartz ◽  
Catherine Mazzola ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Profession ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Common Elements ◽  
Restrictive Covenants ◽  
State Statutes ◽  
The Common ◽  
Noncompete Agreements ◽  
Council Of State ◽  
Neurological Surgery

Abstract BACKGROUND In both academic and private practice, noncompete clauses are common in many neurological surgery contracts. Noncompete agreements vary, depending on various factors, including the surgeon’s subspecialty, location, and business-related considerations. Each individual state’s law on contracts determines the extent to which noncompete clauses are enforceable. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the disparate approaches of various states regarding the enforceability of these clauses and their components. METHODS This review surveys several of the most populous states’ law regarding noncompete clauses. This analysis includes an evaluation of state statutes and common law regarding noncompete clauses. It also relies on legal treatises and law review articles. RESULTS The enforceability of the noncompete clause depends on the state in which the physician is employed. CONCLUSION It is imperative that individuals understand the content of any noncompete clauses in their contract, as well the climate of the state in which they practice. The state's approach determines whether any part or all of the noncompete agreement is enforceable. A review by the Workforce Committee and the Medico-legal Committee of the Council of State Neurosurgical Societies (CSNS) provides explanation of the common elements in restrictive covenants or noncompete clauses and reviews the enforceability of these clauses.

The Law of Contract

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Steiner
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
World Market ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Philosophical Foundations ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

This chapter examines the law of contract in France and discusses the milestone reform of French contract law. While this new legislation introduces a fresh equilibrium between the contracting parties and enhances accessibility and legal certainty in contract, it does not radically change the state of the law in this area. In addition, it does not strongly impact the traditional philosophical foundations of the law of contract. The reform, in short, looks more like a tidying up operation rather than a far-reaching transformation of the law. Therefore, the chapter argues that it is questionable whether the new law, which was also intended to increase France's attractiveness against the background of a world market dominated by the Common Law, will keep its promise.

Classifying precontractual liability: a comparative analysis

Legal Studies ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joachim Dietrich
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Common Elements ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
The Common ◽  
Initial Focus

The common law has solved questions of liability arising in the context of precontractual negotiations by resort to a range of different doctrines and approaches, adopting in effect ‘piecemeal’ solutions to questions of precontractual liability. Consequently, debate has arisen as to how best to classify or categorise claims for precontractual work and as to which doctrines are best suited to solving problems arising from anticipated contracts. The purpose of this article is to consider this question of how best to classify (cases of) precontractual liability. The initial focus will be on the ongoing debate as to whether principles of contract law or principles of unjust enrichment can better solve problems of precontractual liability. I will be suggesting that unjust enrichment theory offers little by way of explanation of cases of precontractual liability and, indeed, draws on principles of contract law in determining questions of liability for precontractual services rendered, though it does so by formulating those principles under different guises. Irrespective, however, of the doctrines utilised by the common law to impose liability, it is possible to identify a number of common elements unifying all cases of precontractual liability. In identifying such common elements of liability, it is necessary to draw on principles of both contract and tort law. How, then, should cases of precontractual liability best be classified? A consideration of the issue of classification of precontractual liability from a perspective of German civil law will demonstrate that a better understanding of cases of precontractual liability will be gained by classifying such cases as lying between the existing categories of contract and tort.

scholarly journals THE PROBLEM OF THE NON-JUSTICIABILITY OF RELIGIOUS DEFAMATIONS

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 241-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Smith
Keyword(s):  
Catholic Church ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Modern Times ◽  
Civil Case ◽  
Magna Carta ◽  
The Common ◽  
English Law

English law has long held the principle that religions should be free from interference by the state in certain matters. The original 1215 edition of the Magna Carta proclaimed, as its first article, ‘THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired.’This article was intended to protect the established Catholic Church from the powers of the state, specifically from interference in church elections by the executive in the form of the person of the monarch. The notion that religions were institutions with practices and beliefs that were outside the control of the state in certain respects was adopted by the common law and is found in modern times in the principle of non-justiciability on the matter of religion in certain types of civil case. 

Open Judiciary Worldwide

2020 ◽  
pp. 1207-1221
Author(s):  
Carlos E. Jiménez-Gómez
Keyword(s):  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Success Factors ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Preliminary Results ◽  
Critical Success ◽  
Learning Practices ◽  
The Common ◽  
Research Questions

Despite its origins, openness in the judiciary has expanded beyond transparency and, therefore, beyond the common law open justice principle. Several initiatives worldwide are echoing this trend and a new term, open judiciary, is arising as a way to address openness in the justice field. This chapter gives an overview of open judiciary initiatives worldwide, focusing on some of the most successful, in order to identify drivers of adoption, critical success factors, and preliminary results. The research is embedded in a broader exploratory study on the state of the art of open judiciary. The chapter is addressed to answer two of the research questions: What are some learning practices that can be identified worldwide in relation to openness in the judiciary? What are some of the most important lessons that can be learnt from these practices?

The Rule of Law and Good Governance

2019 ◽  
pp. 75-90
Author(s):  
Henk Addink
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Government ◽  
Continental Tradition

The concept of the rule of law has different—common law and continental—historical roots and traditional perspectives. The common law tradition is more focused on limiting the powers of the state, whereas the continental tradition focuses on not just to limit but also to empower the government. But both systems have a focus on the rule of law. The rule of law in the classical liberal tradition is based on four elements: legality, division and balance of powers, independent judicial control, and protection of fundamental rights. The differences between rule of law and rechtsstaat are: different concepts of the state, mixed legal systems and different approaches of a constitution, and different perspectives on human rights. There are two levels of development: a model in which law is a way of structuring and restricting the power of the state, the second level is more subjective and has important individual positions. The concept of good governance related to these developments makes clear the need to broaden the concept of the rule of law.

scholarly journals Bibliometric Study in the Heartland: Comparative and Electronic Citation Practices of the Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio Supreme Courts (1994–2004)

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dragomir Cosanici
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Bibliometric Study ◽  
State Supreme Courts ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Secondary Sources ◽  
The Common ◽  
Citation Practices

AbstractThis study by Dragomir Cosanici provides a bibliometric, comparative study of the citation practices of the state supreme courts in the common law jurisdictions of Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio, USA during a recent ten-year span (1994–2004). It focuses on the type of legal materials most frequently cited as authority, examining the importance of both primary and secondary sources. It specifically analyses the growing usage of electronic citations by the four supreme courts.

III. State Treason Trials During the Puritan Revolution, 1640–1660

1972 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adele Hast
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Direct Link ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Legislative Body ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
The Government ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Council Of State ◽  
Legal Procedures

The government of the parliamentary party during the Puritan Revolution of 1640–60 instituted changes in judicial and legal procedures to maintain its power and subdue its enemies. This study of treason trials conducted by the state will examine their legal basis and the events and activities considered treasonable. It will show the ways in which the concept of treason changed under a revolutionary government, and to what extent those trials conducted during the interregnum differed in their legal—judicial bases and content from those held before the King's death. Although there were hundreds of treason convictions during the interregnum throughout England, either by military courts-martial, or by common-law courts sitting in the provinces — as is shown by the Acts providing for die sale of estates forfeited to the Commonwealth for treason — this discussion will limit itself to trials initiated by the government in London. These state trials illustrate die political use of the treason charge; diey provide a direct link between the enactment of the interregnum treason laws and their implementation by the same legislative body. Not only was the meaning of treason determined, and die machinery of trial set up, by parliament; but who was to be tried was also decided eidier by parliament or die Council of State, and, after 1654, by the Protector and his council. It will dierefore be instructive to examine the types of treasonous action considered sufficiendy threatening to warrant parliamentary attention.

The Future of Informed Consent in British Common Law

1999 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

AbstractWithin the common law world, the use of the term informed consent implies the American doctrine. Informed consent as a doctrine is not part of the law in the United Kingdom. However, it is possible to predict a way forward in disclosure cases yet to be heard in the courts of the United Kingdom. These predictions are based on current developments in the common law in the United Kingdom as well as those in Canada and Australia, on the European convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine and on trends within the medical profession itself in the light of the Bolam test.

Open Judiciary Worldwide

2017 ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos E. Jiménez-Gómez
Keyword(s):  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Success Factors ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Preliminary Results ◽  
Critical Success ◽  
Learning Practices ◽  
The Common ◽  
Research Questions

Despite its origins, openness in the judiciary has expanded beyond transparency and, therefore, beyond the common law open justice principle. Several initiatives worldwide are echoing this trend and a new term, open judiciary, is arising as a way to address openness in the justice field. This chapter gives an overview of open judiciary initiatives worldwide, focusing on some of the most successful, in order to identify drivers of adoption, critical success factors, and preliminary results. The research is embedded in a broader exploratory study on the state of the art of open judiciary. The chapter is addressed to answer two of the research questions: What are some learning practices that can be identified worldwide in relation to openness in the judiciary? What are some of the most important lessons that can be learnt from these practices?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document