May v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
4 district · 99 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably Weiss v. Wiederlight (1988), State v. Clemente (1974)
4 district · 99 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 Oregon Steam Navigation Company v. Winsor · Sherman v. Pfefferkorn · Samuel Stores, Inc. v. Abrams · Roessler v. Burwell · Granger v. Craven
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the third factor, “restrictions are valid when they appear to be reasonably necessary for the fair protection of the employer’s business or rights.... Especially if the employment involves ... [the employee’s] contacts and associations with clients or customers it is appropriate to restrain the use, when the service is ended, of the knowledge and acquaintance, so acquired, to injure or appropriate the business which the party was employed to maintain and enlarge.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“in respect either to time or place, . . . and must be reasonable — that is, it should afford only a fair protection to the interest of the party in whose favor it is made and must not be so large in its operation as to interfere with the interests of the public. Cook v. Johnson, 47 Conn. 175 , 186 ; May v. Young, 125 Conn. 1 , 5 , 2 A.2d 385 ; Samuel Stores, Inc. v. Abrams, 94 Conn. 248 , 253 , 108 A. 541 , 9 A.L.R. 1450 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When the character of the business and the nature of the employment are such that the employer requires protection for his established business against competitive activities by one who has become familiar with it through employment therein, restrictions are valid when they appear to be reasonably necessary for the fair protection of the employer's business or rights. . . .”
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.