Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 128 WIS 321 - Cottington v. Swan

Cottington v. Swan’s Empirical Analysis

1906

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
3
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 2010

1 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

30190619101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Oregon Steam Navigation Company v. Winsor · Linn v. Sigsbee · Beal v. Chase · Hubbard v. Miller · Cook v. Johnson

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

  1. ““The vital question in the consideration of every such contract is whether the restraint imposed is reasonable under the circumstances with reference to ‘the situation, business, and objects of the parties,’ and if ‘the restraint contracted for appears to have been for a just and honest purpose, for the protection of the legitimate interests of the party in whose favor it is imposed, reasonable as between them and not specially injurious to the public, the restraint will be held valid.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.