Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 21 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Post v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Post v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Anchor | green | “only to the extent that they are reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the employer and not unduly harsh or burdensome to the one restrained” | 3 |
| 2 | Post v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. | green | “so potent is this policy that covenants tending to restrain anyone from engaging in any lawful vocation are almost uniformly disfavored and are sustained only to the extent that they are reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the employer and not unduly hars…” | 3 |
| 3 | Scott, Stackrow & Co., C.P.A.'S, P.C. v. Skavina | green | “if it seeks to bar the employee from soliciting or providing services to clients with whom the employee never acquired a relationship through his or her employment” | 3 |
| 4 | Scott, Stackrow & Co., C.P.A.'S, P.C. v. Skavina | green | “imposed the covenant in bad faith, knowing full well that it was overbroad” | 3 |
| 5 | Paul v. Cooper | green | “an issue of law that 'could not have been avoided by plaintiffs if brought to their attention in a timely manner” | 3 |
| 6 | Wise v. Transco, Inc. | green | “preclude the enforcement of a forfeiture-for-competition clause where the termination of employment is involuntary and without cause” | 3 |
| 7 | M&T Bank v. HR Staffing Solutions, Inc. | green | “failed to demonstrate that facts essential to oppose the motion were in defendants' exclusive knowledge and possession and could be obtained by discovery” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.