Racine v. Bender’s Empirical Analysis
1927
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently July 2005 · most notably Arthur Murray Dance Studios of Cleveland, Inc. v. Witter (1952), Holloway v. Faw, Casson & Co. (1990)
32 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 Samuel Stores, Inc. v. Abrams · Mandeville v. Harman · Menter Co. v. Brock · John Davis & Co. v. Miller · Ice Delivery Co. of Spokane v. Davis
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“was ... a basis and a part consideration for future employment”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The validity of covenants by employees not to engage in a similar or competing business for a definite period of time, following the termination of the contract of employment in which the covenant is incorporated, may be sustained, although the contract is recognized to be in restraint of trade. The test generally applied in determining the validity of such a covenant is whether or not the restraint is necessary for the protection of the business or good will of the employer, and, if so, whether it imposes on the employee any greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to secure to the business of the employer, or the good will thereof, such protection, regard being had to the injury which may result to the public, by restraining the breach of the covenant, in the loss of the service and skill of the employee, and the danger of his becoming a charge upon the public. "It is clear that if the nature of the employment is such as will bring the employee in personal contact with the patrons or customers of the employer, or enable him to acquire valuable information as to the nature and character of the business and the names and requirements of the patrons or customers, enabling him, by engaging in a competing business in his own behalf, or for another, to take advantage of such knowledge of or acquaintance with the patrons or customers of his former employer, and thereby gain an unfair advantage, equity will interfere in behalf of the employer and restrain the breach of a neg”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"(d) For a period of three years after leaving such employment I will not: "(1) Solicit accounting or auditing work from any person, firm or corporation with whom I came in contact as a representative of Samuel F. Racine & Co., or "(2) Perform any accounting or auditing work, either acting for myself or for any other party, for any person, firm or corporation with whom I came in contact during my employment with Samuel F. Racine & Co...."”
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.