859.255.6676  mgm@kentuckylaw.com

This is an advertisement.

Attorneys » Elizabeth C. Woodford

Elizabeth C. Woodford

Elizabeth C. Woodford graduated with high distinction in 1999 from the UK College of Law, where she was elected to the Order of the Coif and served as an Associate Editor for the Kentucky Law Journal. Before joining Miller, Griffin & Marks, P.S.C. as an Associate, she served as law clerk for Judge Jennifer Coffman, United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky. Elizabeth joined the firm in 2001 and engages in the general practice of law.

Related Items

Agnich v. Tyler (2016-CA-653, Fayette Circuit Court 13-CI-2538)

Same-sex parents shared equal timesharing and joint custody of their autistic twins, and had entered an agreement that they would each remain in the same school district until the children graduated from high school. The twins’ biological mother filed a Motion to relocate with the minor children to another state, and the trial court granted the motion over the non-biological mother’s objection. The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, finding that no evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion that the children would have better resources if they moved.  The Court of Appeals determined that “a finding that the move is in LaDonna’s personal interest is not the same as a conclusion that the children’s interests will be benefited.” Read the Opinion.

May 5, 2017 Filed Under:   Litigation   Family Law

Charles T. Creech, Inc. v. Brown and Standlee, 433 S.W.2d 345 (Ky. 2014) (2012-SC-651-DG) (2011-CA-629)(09-CI-779) Fayette Circuit Court

In a case that traversed from trial court, to court of appeals, back to the trial court, back to the court of appeals and then to supreme court, Kentucky’s highest court changed the law on noncompetition agreements and the consideration required for an enforceable restrictive covenant.   Company sued former employee and his new employer to enforce a noncompete executed by employee after many years of service and without any additional compensation or consideration to the employee. After several hearings the trial court granted injunctive relief and applied the “blue pencil” doctrine to insert a reasonable area limitation on the noncompete ruling that the former employee could not act in violation of the contract. Read the trial court’s ruling and temporary injunction.

Former employee and his new employer then pursued emergency relief at the Court of Appeals under CR 65.07.  The Court of Appeals dissolved the injunction on the emergency appeal.  Read the CR 65.07 order dissolving the temporary injunction.   The supreme court declined review as to the interlocutory rulings.  The case was then remanded to the trial court to address the merits of the case without any injunctive relief being in place and the trial court granted Former Employee summary judgment and dismissed the balance of the Company’s case for protection based on the wording of the appellate court’s order.

Company then appealed and on full review the Court of Appeals agreed that the Company’s claims should not have been dismissed but significantly limited its damage claim and created a new “test” for enforceability of noncompetes. See the Opinion of the Court of Appeals

Company moved for discretionary review which was granted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then used the case as a first review by the high court to consider noncompetes and held that 50+ years of law in Kentucky providing that continued employment is adequate consideration to enforce a noncompete is no longer applicable. They held that the noncompete in issue was unenforceable due to lack of consideration while also holding that the “blue pencil” doctrine is not available in Kentucky.  See the Opinion of the Kentucky Supreme Court

Noncompete/restrictive covenant/employment/consideration/CR 65 relief/blue pencil doctrine/issues on review/damages/adequate consideration/unenforceable


June 19, 2014 Filed Under:   Litigation   Transactional Law   Employment Law

Sports South, LLC v. Earley M. Johson, II et al., USDC ED KY, 13-CV-266-JMH (February 27, 2014)

The trial court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings because the personal guarantees were unenforceable as a matter of law as not complying with the requirements for a guaranty of indebtedness set out by Kentucky statute.

Personal guarantee/business debt/KRS 371.065/credit agreement/unenforceable/sophisticated business person

Read more ›

February 27, 2014 Filed Under:   Litigation   Transactional Law

Crawford v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (2008 WL 2885230 (E.D.Ky.))

Justin Crawford, a Sergeant in the Custody Bureau at the Fayette County Detention Center, came to Miller, Griffin & Marks with a complaint: the Detention Center administrators routinely refused to allow officers to take legally required meal and rest breaks, were not fairly compensating them for the true number of hours worked, and were retaliating against the few employees who dared to speak out. In a work environment which requires daily contact with dangerous individuals, the employees’ inability to enjoy meaningful meal and rest breaks away from inmates, alarms and other work responsibilities was particularly troublesome. Sergeant Crawford explained that many other employees had the same complaints, but were afraid of the consequences of publicizing their views. Thereafter, seven other Detention Center officers agreed to join him as lead plaintiffs in a class collective action originally filed in the Fayette Circuit Court, but ultimately resolved in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Sergeant Crawford was eventually joined by 316 other current and former Detention Center employees, all of whom alleged that the LFUCG had failed to comply with federal and state wage and hour laws. After more than two years of intense litigation, which included the taking and defending of almost one hundred depositions and extensive motion practice before the Court, Miller, Griffin & Marks was able to negotiate a fair settlement on behalf of the class. The Detention Center plaintiffs were finally paid the wages to which they were entitled. Even more importantly, the settlement included provisions to protect and benefit all Detention Center employees, present and future. The employees were assured of sufficient time in which to eat their meals, and an accurate method of reporting hours worked. Miller, Griffin & Marks is proud to have represented the Detention Center employees who serve our community, and remains committed to the values underlying the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Read more ›

January 1, 2009 Filed Under:   Litigation   Employment Law

Litigating the Horse Transportation Claim

Read the article.

January 1, 2007 Filed Under:   Equine Law   Litigation

SKS Merch, LLC, Toby Keith, et al. v. Mike Barry, Lou Black, Louie Catone 233 F.Supp.2d 841, 65 U.S. (2002)

In a case of significance to the music industry, music artist, Toby Keith, was granted a federal nationwide injunction under the Lanham Trade-Mark Act against sellers of bootleg merchandise.  Read more ›

January 1, 2002 Filed Under:   Litigation