103 Wis. 2d 465 - Fields Foundation, Ltd. v. Christensen’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably 111 Wis. 2d 518 - Wassenaar v. Panos (1983), Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc. v. Jones (2006)
4 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 87 Wis. 2d 243 - Cogswell v. Robertshaw Controls Co. · 101 Wis. 2d 460 - Rollins Burdick Hunter of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Hamilton · 84 Wis. 2d 202 - Gary Van Zeeland Talent, Inc. v. Sandas · Lathan v. Journal Co. · 80 Wis. 2d 257 - Converters Equipment Corp. v. Condes Corp.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] restrictive covenant must: (1) be necessary for the protection of the employer, that is, the employer must have a protectable interest justifying the restriction imposed on the activity of the employee; (2) provide a reasonable time limit; (3) provide a reasonable territorial limit; (4) not be harsh or oppressive as to the employee; and (5) not be contrary to public policy.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A covenant by an assistant, servant or agent not to compete with his or her employer or principal during the term of the employment or agency, or after the termination of that employment or agency, within a specified territory and during a specified time is lawful and enforceable only if the restrictions imposed are reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer or principal. Any covenant, described in this subsection, imposing an unreasonable restraint is illegal, void and unenforceable even as to any part of the covenant or performance that would be a reasonable restraint.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]o enforce a restraint, the employee must present a substantial risk either to the employer's relationships with his customers or with respect to confidential business information.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.