Lanmark Technology, Inc. v. Canales’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1446
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Simmons v. Miller
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Thus, where, as here, the non-compete clause effectively prohibits the employee from working in virtually any capacity for a competitor, it is not narrowly drawn to protect the employer's legitimate business interest, and thus, is functionally overbroad.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hawkins v. Fishbeck“requires that the employer show that the clause (i) is narrowly drawn to protect the employer's legitimate business interest; (ii) is not unduly burdensome on the employee's ability to earn a living; and (iii) is not against sound public policy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to protect itself from losing potential work to competitors through employees who leave the company and then compete against [plaintiff] using the business sensitive knowledge and contacts they acquired”
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.