Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 231 Md. 1 - Silver v. Goldberger

Silver v. Goldberger’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
4
states following
February 2020
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 15 district · 36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably 89 Md. App. 448 - Fowler v. Printers II, Inc. (1991), Holloway v. Faw, Casson & Co. (1990)

4 federal appellate · 15 district · 36 state decisions

1401963197019801990200020102020decided

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 Western Maryland Dairy, Inc. v. Chenowith · Tawney v. Mutual System of Maryland, Inc. · Tolman Laundry, Inc. v. Walker · Deuerling v. City Baking 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““There is a line of cases which holds that restraint is justified if a part of the compensated services of the former employee consisted in the creation of the good will of customers and clients which is likely to follow the person of the former employee. And there is another line of cases which holds that restraint is not justified if the harm caused by service to another consists merely in the fact that the former employee becomes a more efficient competitor just as the former employer did through having a competent and efficient employee. See 6A Corbin, Contracts, § 1394.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[Restrictive covenants in a contract of employment ... will be sustained if the restraint is confined within limits which are no wider as to area and duration than are reasonably necessary for the protection of the business of the employer and do not impose undue hardship on the employee or disregard the interests of the public. (Emphasis added.)”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “employees, who, in operating a regular route, or in serving the same customers constantly, come into personal contact with the customers of the employer, usually [are enforceable].”
    2 later decisions 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.