Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 146 MICH 550 - Geiger v. Cawley

Geiger v. Cawley’s Empirical Analysis

1906

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
April 1935
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 1935

1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

401906191019201930decided

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 Jaquith v. Hudson · Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Bartlett · 42 N.J. Eq. 606 - Finger v. Hahn

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

  1. ““We think it equally clear that defendant, by engaging in the business of selling hardware and agricultural implements, violated his agreement. The object of the agreement, as heretofore indicated, was to prevent defendant competing with plaintiff in the business of selling hardware, furniture, implements, buggies, and wagons. The agreement should be so construed as to accomplish this object. So construed, it obligated defendant to refrain from selling hardware, furniture, implements, buggies, or wagons in competition with plaintiff. It is possibly true that to reach this construction we read the word ‘and’ in the phrase ‘hardware, furniture, implements, buggies, and wagons’ as if it were ‘or.’ That we are at liberty to do, in order to construe the agreement in accordance with the intention of the parties.””
    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.