The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Home Paramount Pest Control v. Shaffer
No. 101837Supreme Court of Virginia
101837 Home Paramount Pest Control v. Shaffer 11/04/2011 In a contract-related action arising from a "non-compete" provision in an employment contract, the trial court did not err in dismissing the former empl…
The clerk's words are shown exactly as filed.The activity
Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The source
The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.
101837 Home Paramount Pest Control v. Shaffer 11/04/2011 In a contract-related action arising from a "non-compete" provision in a…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- November 4, 2011
No bill or executive-order citation is attached to this file.
Official docket
Case timeline
The clerk's wording is shown verbatim and linked to the court's own document page where available.
Docket entry
101837 Home Paramount Pest Control v. Shaffer 11/04/2011 In a contract-related action arising from a "non-compete" provision in an employment contract, the trial court did not err in dismissing the former employer's complaint. The former employer did not satisfy its burden of proving that there were legitimate business interests warranting the broad terms of the restrictive provision in this employment agreement, barring the employee from assuming functions in the pest control business in the relevant area in any capacity whatsoever. The judgment is affirmed.
Open court document ↗Rulings in this case over time
Courts at different levels and stages can reach different results in the same case. Each entry is the court's own record; read it before drawing a conclusion.
1 entry, oldest first.
· Supreme Court of Virginia
AffirmedDismissed
The court's record, as written
101837 Home Paramount Pest Control v. Shaffer 11/04/2011 In a contract-related action arising from a "non-compete" provision in an employment contract, the trial court did not err in dismissing the former employer's complaint. The former employer did not satisfy its burden of proving that there were legitimate business interests warranting the broad terms of the restrictive provision in this employment agreement, barring the employee from assuming functions in the pest control business in the relevant area in any capacity whatsoever. The judgment is affirmed.
Outcome words in this text: dismissing, affirmed.
Method: an entry is marked with an outcome only when its own text contains the outcome word, and the word is shown beside it. Orders, opinions and judgments whose text does not say are marked Other. Party filings, notices and routine procedural orders (appearances, extra pages, time extensions, scheduling) are not listed. No link between this case and any other case is recorded in our data, so only this case's own record is shown. Open the court's docket
Documents and links