105 N.J. Super. 14 - Alexander S. v. Arnold Constable’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Alexander's further urges that paragraph 51 is against public policy and in restraint of trade. The effect of this provision is to exclude from the shopping center 11 specified retailers, including Alexander's. Some of the named retailers are noncompetitors of Arnold Constable. Additionally, "any other discount-house type of retail business" or competing department or specialty store is prevented from locating in the shopping center. It is argued that the total exclusion of retail discount stores should not be countenanced. Apparently Arnold Constable was interested in locating in a "quality type" shopping center where it would also be free from competition. Presumably it was of the view that noncompetitive discount operations would not attract to the shopping center the type of clientele that patronizes Arnold Constable. The landlord concurred. There is no public policy that militates against the parties incorporating such a provision in the lease. Nor is there any restraint of trade effected through the exclusion of the discount type of store. They are free to locate anywhere on any property not controlled, directly or indirectly, by landlord, Atlas or Doelger. [ Id. at 25-26 , 250 A. 2d 792 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 278 N.J. Super. 419 - Cox v. Simon

2. “The restrictions in the Arnold Constable lease prohibiting competition by Alexander's are reasonable in area and duration. In commercial settings such as seller and purchaser, as distinguished from employer-employee contracts containing territorial restrictions against post-employment competition, restrictions in excess of five miles have been consistently upheld. [ Id. at 27 , 250 A. 2d 792 (citations omitted).] The covenant prohibiting competition by Alexander's during the term of the lease is reasonable in time. Such covenants in leases, co-extensive with the lease term, have been upheld without a suggestion that the duration was unreasonable. [ Ibid. (citations omitted).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 278 N.J. Super. 419 - Cox v. Simon

3. “any other discount-house type of retail business”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 278 N.J. Super. 419 - Cox v. Simon