Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Leonard v. Clark

3 Citing cases

  1. Barke v. Banks

    25 F.4th 714 (9th Cir. 2022)   Cited 21 times
    In Barke, plaintiffs, who were “elected members of local California government bodies, including city councils, school boards, and community college and special purpose districts,” challenged Cal. Gov. Code § 3550. Id. at 14 (citing 25 F.4th at 716-17).

    Our prior decision in Leonard v. Clark is instructive. 12 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 1993), as amended (Mar. 8, 1994). Leonard involved a collective bargaining agreement that restricted a union's ability to "specifically endorse[ ] or sponsor[ ]" legislation that would benefit the union's members.

  2. Legal Aid Society v. City of New York

    114 F. Supp. 2d 204 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)   Cited 88 times
    Holding that the Legal Aid Society's contractual waiver of its right to challenge the City's action, a right provided for by the National Labor Relations Act, was valid

    However, any such waiver must be made "voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently." Marsh, 105 F.3d at 111; see Lake James Community Volunteer Fire Dep't, Inc. v. Burke County, 149 F.3d 277, 280 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1106, 119 S.Ct. 874, 142 L.Ed.2d 775 (1999); United States v. Local 1804-1, 44 F.3d 1091, 1098 n. 4 (2d Cir. 1995); Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885, 889-90 (9th Cir. 1993); Erie Telecommunications, 853 F.2d at 1094; Sambo's Restaurants, 663 F.2d at 690. Moreover, the waiver must be established by "clear and compelling" evidence.

  3. Overbey v. Mayor & City Council of Balt.

    930 F.3d 215 (4th Cir. 2019)   Cited 54 times
    Holding that "strong public interests rooted in the First Amendment" rendered a non-disparagement clause in a settlement agreement from a prior police misconduct lawsuit "unenforceable and void"

    If that were enough, no confidentiality agreement or non-disparagement provision could ever stand. See Leonard v. Clark , 12 F.3d 885, 892 n.12 (9th Cir. 1993). Instead, the proper inquiry is how much those public policy interests are impaired, if at all, based on the applicable record.