Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2 So. 2d 65 - Belvin v. Sikes

2 So. 2d 65 - Belvin v. Sikes’s Empirical Analysis

1941

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
September 2007
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently September 2007

7 state decisions

301941195019601970198019902000decided

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 Edwards v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana · Saxton v. Para Rubber Co. · Eugene Dietzgen Co. v. Kokosky · Moorman v. Parkerson · Vonderbank v. Schmidt

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

  1. ““It is obvious that without the stipulation in the lease guaranteeing Belvin against competition in the character of business he intended to and did in fact institute upon the leased land, he would not have entered into the contract. That provision was the essence of the agreement. The lessors not only obligated themselves to abstain from such competition, but, in legal effect, also bound themselves not to allow others to do so on any land they owned on the lake. Relying upon the binding effect of said stipulation, Belvin expended considerable money to equip the land with improvements suitable to accommodate the character of patronage he hoped to and did receive thereafter. In these circumstances the equitable in-junctive relief was available to him. He could not adequately protect his rights save by resort to this character of .relief. To allow the competition to continue meant the destruction of his own business. Eugene Dietzgen Company v. Kokosky, 113 La. 449 , 37 So. 24 , 66 L.R.A. 503 ; Moorman & Givens v. Parkerson, 127 La. 835 , 54 So. 47 ; Vonderbank v. Schmidt, 44 La.Ann. 264 , 10 So. 616 , 15 L.R.A. 462 , 32 Am.St.Rep. 336 ; May v. Johnson, et al., 13 La.App. 521 , 128 So. 540 .””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The payment must be made in the place specified in the agreement. If the place be not thus specified, the payment, in case of a certain and determinate substance, must be made in the place where was, at the time of the agreement, the thing which is the object of it. These two cases excepted, the payment must be made at the dwelling of the debtor.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Parties of the first part [lessors] agree and bind themselves to protect the party of the second part [lessee] against any competition in mercantile, cafe, of service station business, fishing camps, and rental cabins, on any lands now owned by them during the life of this lease.””
    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.