Legal Opinion

Stringer v. Herron

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided November 16, 1992No. 1892PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Goolsby, Judge:

This appeal concerns the enforceability of a covenant not to compete ancillary to an employment contract between two veterinarians, Fred Stringer and Walter Herron. The trial court upheld the covenant’s territorial restriction and enjoined Herron from practicing veterinary medicine within the proscribed area. It also awarded Stringer $30,000 in “liquidated damages.” Herron appeals. We reverse.

Herron and Stringer entered into a written employment contract on July 1, 1985. The contract, which was to begin on July 1, 1986, and to end on July 1, 1991, contained the following…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Almers v. South Carolina National BankSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1975
  2. Standard Register Co. v. KerriganSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1961
  3. Rental Uniform Service of Florence, Inc. v. DudleySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1983
  4. Somerset v. ReynerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1958
  5. Rental Uniform Service of Greenville, South Carolina, Inc. v. K & M Tool & Die, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1987

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Faces Boutique, Ltd. v. GibbsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1995
  2. Baugh v. Columbia Heart Clinic, P.A.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2013
  3. Covenant Equip. Corp. v. Forklift Pro, Inc.North Carolina Business Court · 2008
  4. Belimed, Inc. v. BleeckerDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2022
  5. Relation Insurance Services Select, Inc. and Relation Insurance, Inc. v. Meredith Perry Sox, Christopher E. Perry, and Perry Group Insurance Services, LLCDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2026

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API