Eisel v. Hayes’s Empirical Analysis
1895
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently February 1997 · most notably Donahue v. Permacel Tape Corp. (1955), Norlund v. Faust (1997)
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
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 Martin v. Murphy · Beard v. Dennis · Duffy v. Shockey · Bowser v. Bliss
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The contract is as follows: “ ‘State of Indiana, “ ‘Jackson County, “ ‘Agreement between John Eisel and W. H. Hayes, witnesseth: “ ‘1st. Eisel sells and delivers to Hayes the following personal property, viz: 1 butcher’s cooler, 1 meat rack (with hooks and pins), 2 meat saws, 2 butcher blocks and one counter, for which said Hayes pays cash in hand the sum of forty-five dollars ($45). And, it is further agreed as a part, of this contract, that said Eisel is not to engage in the butcher business in Brownstown, nor nearer thereto than Seymour, Ind., nor sell any meat within that distance, during the time said Hayes carries on the butcher business in Brownstown, Indiana. Said sum of $45 is now paid by Hayes to Eisel. “ ‘Witness our hands and seals this 20th day of March, 1893. “ ‘John Eisel, (Seal.) “ ‘W. H. Hayes, (Seal.)’ “Appellants contend that the contract does not .show any consideration for their promise not to engage in the butcher business at the place and during the time named;. that the forty-five dollars was given only for the implements purchased. “We are of opinion that the whole contract must be taken together, and that the money paid by Hayes was for the transfer of not only the tools sold, but also the good-will promised. The contract is a unit. Martin v. Murphy, 129 Ind, 464. “Besides, ‘the mere purchase of the stock in trade of a party is a sufficient consideration for that party’s agreement to abstain from carrying on the particular trade in the place where t”
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.