Deutsche Post Global Mail, Ltd. v. Conrad’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
4 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Thompson v. Potomac Electric Power Co. · 89 Md. App. 448 - Fowler v. Printers II, Inc. · Holloway v. Faw, Casson & Co. · Tawney v. Mutual System of Maryland, Inc. · Ruhl v. F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“four requirements that must be met for a restrictive covenant [such as a non-compete clause] to be enforceable: (1) the employer must have a legally protected interest, (2) the restrictive covenant must be no wider in scope and duration than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer’s interest, (3) the covenant cannot impose an undue hardship on the employee, and (4) the covenant cannot violate public policy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“directly or indirectly ... in any activity which may affect adversely the interest of the Company or any Related Corporation and the businesses conducted by either of them, including, without limitation, directly or indirectly soliciting or diverting customers and/or employees of the Company or any related Corporation or attempting to so solicit or divert such customers and/or employees.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.