Water Processing Tech., Inc. v. Ridgeway’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 2010
1 federal appellate · 9 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 600 So. 2d 85 - Comet Industries, Inc. v. Lawrence · Comet Industries, Inc. v. Lawrence · 608 So. 2d 222 - Daiquiri's III on Bourbon, Ltd. v. Wandfluh · Daiquiri's III on Bourbon, Ltd. v. Wandfluh · 593 So. 2d 741 - Neeb-Kearney and Co., Inc. v. Rellstab
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. Every contract or agreement, or provision thereof, by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, except as provided in this Section, shall be null and void. * * * * * * C. Any ... person who is employed as an agent, servant, or employee may agree with his employer to refrain from carrying on or engaging in a business similar to that of the employer and/or from soliciting customers of the employer within a specified parish or parishes, municipality or municipalities, or parts thereof, so long as the employer carries on a like business therein, not to exceed a period of two years from termination of employment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]hat limitation [imposed on an employee pursuant to a non-compete clause] may occur only in a restricted geographical area, "a specified parish or parishes, municipality or municipalities, or parts thereof," .... We find that the non-competition clause included in the Distributorship Agreement fails to comply with the exception to the general prohibition described in § 23:921C. Although the [statutory] exception requires that the territorial limits for non-competition be specified, the clause in this agreement does not do so. While limits may be inferred from the limits of the Distributorship Agreement itself, we decline to reform the non-competition clause in favor of the employer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“parish or parishes, municipality or municipalities, or parts thereof wherein the employer carries on a similar business are unenforceable. Comet Industries, supra at 87 . Moreover, a”
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.