Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 12 Mass. App. Ct. 1 - Chomerics, Inc. v. Ehrreich

12 Mass. App. Ct. 1 - Chomerics, Inc. v. Ehrreich’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
June 2003
most recently cited

4 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 2003

4 district · 6 state decisions

50198119902000decided

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 Van Products Co. v. General Welding & Fabricating Co. · New England Canteen Service, Inc. v. Ashley · Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. v. Crampton · Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. v. Crampton · J. T. Healy & Son, Inc. v. James A. Murphy & Son, Inc.

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In a case such as ours, information which is so ‘closely tied to the intrinsic knowledge of the inventor . . . [that it is not] possible to sort the process from the inner workings of a man’s knowledge’ is not protectible. Amoco Prod. Co. v. Lindley, 609 P.2d [733, 745 (Okla. 1980) ]. We do not require an employee ‘upon terminating his employment [to] search his mind for all thoughts relating to the business of his employer and set these down for the employer’s reference ... [so that] thereafter, he is forever precluded from employing such thoughts in a competitive enterprise.’ Koehring Co. v. E.D. Etnyre & Co., 254 F. Supp. [334, 355 (N.D. Ill. 1966)]. To do this would be to give insufficient weight to the employee’s right to use ‘the product of his knowledge acquired previous to [his] employment, and of the use of his faculties, skill and experience in the ordinary course of his employment . . . .’ New Method Die & Cut-Out Co. v. Milton Bradley Co., 289 Mass. at 282-283 .””
    1 later decision 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.