Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 823 F.2d 1199 - Amp Incorporated v. James Fleischhacker

Amp Incorporated v. James Fleischhacker’s Empirical Analysis

823 F.2d 1199 · 1987

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
7
states following
July 2020
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Trandes Corporation v. Guy F. Atkinson Company, and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (1993), Securities & Exchange Commission v. Cherif (1991)

15 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions

34019871990200020102020decided

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 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Wainwright v. Sykes · Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp. · Flick-Reedy Corp. v. Hydro-Line Manufacturing Co. · Sanchez 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Other courts have warned plaintiffs of the risks they run by failing to identify specific trade secrets and instead producing long lists of general areas of information which contain unidentified trade secrets.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A]n employee is free to take with him general skills and knowledge acquired during his tenure with his former employer.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “While an enforceable restrictive covenant may protect material such as confidential information revealed to an employee during the course of his employment, which does not constitute a trade secret, an employer’s protection absent a restrictive covenant is narrower and extends only to trade secrets or near-permanent customer relationships.”
    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.