8 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 35 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 Atlanta Bread Co. International v. Lupton-Smith.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Atlanta Bread Co. International v. Lupton-Smith Anchor | green | “his court has rejected a legislative attempt to usurp the application of standards of reasonableness to noncompetition covenants in employment agreements.” | 5 |
| 2 | Hansen v. Edwards | green | “an agreement on the part of an employee not to compete with his employer after termination of the employment is in restraint of trade and will not be enforced in accordance with its terms unless the same are reasonable.” | 5 |
| 3 | Whelan Security Co. v. Kennebrew | green | “hen the provisions of a non-compete clause impose a restraint that is unreasonably broad, appellate courts still can give effect to its purpose by refusing to give effect to the unreasonable terms or modifying the terms of the contract to be reasonable.” | 5 |
| 4 | Hansen v. Edwards | green | “we deem the restriction thus modified to be reasonable.” | 4 |
| 5 | Durapin, Inc. v. American Products, Inc. | green | “we believe this is the appropriate time to choose the route that permits unreasonable restraints to be modified and enforced, whether or not their terms are divisible, unless the circumstances indicate bad faith or 2 deliberate overreaching on the part of the promisee.” | 4 |
| 6 | Reno Club, Inc. v. Young Investment Co. | green | “here is no ambiguity or uncertainty in the meaning of the language employed in the option agreement. . . , and hence no room for judicial construction.” | 4 |
| 7 | Traffic Control Services, Inc. v. United Rentals Northwest, Inc. | green | “employers commonly rely upon restrictive covenants. . . to safeguard important business interests.” | 4 |
| 8 | Merrimack Valley Wood Products, Inc. v. Near | green | “courts have the power to reform overly broad restrictive covenants if the employer shows that it acted in good faith in the execution of the employment contract” | 4 |
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.