7 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 29 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 Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. v. Kevin Hennkens.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. v. Kevin Hennkens Anchor | green | “the missouri courts have frequently held that . . . substantial and individualized customer contacts are a protectable interest warranting injunctive relief enforcing a covenant not to compete.” | 5 |
| 2 | Mid-States Paint & Chemical Co. v. Herr | green | “the employer has protectable interests in trade secrets and customer contacts.” | 5 |
| 3 | EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., PLAINTIFF—APPELLEE v. GUY ROGERS GUY ROGERS SALES, INC., DEFENDANTS—APPELLANTS | green | “rogers knowingly and voluntarily agreed to be restricted by the covenant, and any perceived harm to him by the enforcement of the agreement is outweighed by the harm foreseeable to emerson.” | 4 |
| 4 | Kessler-Heasley Artificial Limb Co. v. Kenney | green | “stock in customers, also referred to as customer contacts, are a legitimate protectable interest.” | 4 |
| 5 | Naegele v. Biomedical Systems Corp. | green | “in missouri, the courts have identified two protectable interests of employers: customer contacts and trade secrets.” | 4 |
| 6 | Superior Gearbox Co. v. Edwards | green | “covenant restricting an employee's right to compete must be reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interests and reasonable as to time and geographic scope.” | 4 |
| 7 | Osage Glass, Inc. v. Donovan | green | “covenants against competition must serve a proper interest of the employer in protecting the good will of a business, and must be reasonably limited in time and space.” | 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.