Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 310 Minn. 391 - Harris v. Bolin

Harris v. Bolin’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
3
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Dynamic Air, Inc. v. Bloch (1993), Brockley v. Lozier Corp. (1992)

2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

100197619801990200020102020decided

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 Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co. · Rochester Corp. v. Rochester · Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Greeley · 60 Ill. App. 2d 415 - Van Pelt v. Berefco, Inc. · Eutectic Welding Alloys Corporation v. West

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

  1. “The test * * * is whether or not the restraint is necessary for the protection of the business or good will of the employer, and if so, whether the stipulation has imposed upon the employee any greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer’s business, regard being had to the nature and character of the employment, the time for which the restriction is imposed, and the territorial extent of the locality to which the prohibition extends.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “attempted to distinguish between covenants not to compete in employment contracts and the penalty imposed under profit sharing plans for competing, the purpose of both arrangements is the same; therefore, under the common law, such agreements should be enforced only when they are found to be reasonable in scope after balancing the interests of the employer and employee.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “an unlawful restraint of trade because it is not limited as to time, harm to the employer, or geographical area.”
    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.