274 Ill. App. 3d 59 - Jackson v. Hammer’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably 391 Ill. App. 3d 722 - Alpha School Bus Co., Inc. v. Wagner (2009), Learning Curve Toys Incorporated v. Playwood Toys Incorporated (2003)
7 federal appellate · 18 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 141 Ill. 2d 281 - Quake Construction, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc. · 49 Ill. 2d 88 - ILG Industries, Inc. v. Scott · 240 Ill. App. 3d 737 - Grossinger Motorcorp, Inc. v. American National Bank & Trust Co. · 110 Ill. App. 3d 800 - Schoeneweis v. Herrin · 98 Ill. App. 3d 758 - Hydroaire, Inc. v. Sager
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Here, plaintiff's customer lists were not kept under lock and key, defendants (plaintiff's competitor) knew many of plaintiff's customers, and the record contains no evidence that plaintiff took steps to explain the secrecy or confidentiality of the lists to his employees. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to trade secret protection under the Act, and all issues pertaining to the Act were properly resolved against him.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] court should consider the following factors in determining whether a trade secret exists : (1) the extent to which the information is known outside of the plaintiff's business; (2) the extent to which it is known by the employees and others involved in the plaintiff's business; (3) the extent of measures taken by the plaintiff to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) the value of the information to the plaintiff and to the plaintiff's competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money expended by the plaintiff in developing the information; and (6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others. Of these factors, the most important is whether and how an employer acts to keep the information secret .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A party can be considered a 'prevailing party' for the purposes of awarding fees when he is successful on any significant issue in the action and achieves some benefit in bringing suit, receives a judgment in his favor, ... or by obtaining an affirmative recovery.”
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.