Ridley v. Krout’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably Bennett v. Storz Broadcasting Co. (1965), Donahue v. Permacel Tape Corp. (1955)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 41 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Clark Paper & Manufacturing Co. v. Stenacher · Sherman v. Pfefferkorn · Bristol v. Equitable Life Assurance Society · Victor Chemical Works v. Iliff · Love v. Miami Laundry 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In every case where the plaintiff seeks protection for a trade secret, it must appear that it really is a secret. If a so-called secret process is known to others in the trade, no one will be enjoined from disclosing or using it. * * * * * * “Trade secrets may not be construed as consisting of knowledge and efficiency which the defendant obtained or procured through his experience. (Citation omitted) í|í % í|í í}C íjí ifc An employer cannot by contract prevent his employee from using the skill and intelligence acquired or increased and improved through experience or through instruction received in the course of the employment, for it becomes part of the employee’s personal equipment as distinguished from trade secrets, special influence v/ith customers or confidential information acquired during the course of the employment.” 180 P.2d at 130-131 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“He [the employer] is undoubtedly entitled to have his interest in his trade secrets protected, such as secret processes of manufacture which may be of vast value. And that protection may be secured by restraining the employee from divulging these secrets or putting them to his own use. He is also entitled not to have his old customers by solicitation or such other means enticed away from him. But freedom from all competition per se apart from both these things, however lucrative it might be to him, he is not entitled to be protected against. He must be prepared to encounter that even at the hands of a former employee.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““* * * A man’s right to labor in any occupation in which he is fit to engage is a valuable right, which should not be taken from him or limited by injunction except in a clear case showing the justice and necessity therefor.””
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.