Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 791 FSUPP 1280 - Basicomputer Corp. v. Scott

Basicomputer Corp. v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
November 2014
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 2014

2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

50199120002010decided

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 Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission · St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · Beacon Theaters Inc v. C Westover · Sampson v. Murray · Scalza v. United States

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

  1. “the absence or presence of limitations as to time and space, * * * whether the employee represents the sole contact with the customer; whether the employee is possessed with confidential information or trade secrets; whether the covenant seeks to eliminate competition which would be unfair to the employer or merely seeks to eliminate ordinary competition; whether the covenant seeks to stifle the inherent skill and experience of the employee; whether the covenant operates as a bar to the employee's sole means of support; whether the employee's talent which the employer seeks to suppress was actually developed during the period of employment; and whether the forbidden employment is merely incidental to the main employment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A covenant restraining an employee from competing with his former employer upon termination of employment is reasonable if it is no greater than is required for the protection of the employer, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[R]estrictions upon an employee will be enforced to the extent necessary to protect an employer's legitimate interests.”
    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.