Cust v. Item Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently May 1995 · most notably 9 to 5 Fashions, Inc. v. Spurney (1989), Harvey v. Travelers Insurance Company (1964)
4 federal appellate · 63 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 Moulin v. Monteleone · Blanchard v. Haber · Kline v. Eubanks · Hartman v. Greene · B. J. Wolf & Sons v. New Orleans Tailor-Made Pants Co.
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * But it is now well settled that one who is not a party to a contract is not liable in damages to one of the parties to the contract for inducing the other party to breach the contract." (Citing authorities) 8 So.2d at 363 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"He who causes another person to do an unlawful act, or assists or encourages in the commission of it, is answerable, in solido, with that person, for the damage caused by such act."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * But our opinion is that that clause in the contract is contrary to public policy and therefore null. It was so held with regard to a similar clause in a contract of employment in the case of Blanchard v. Haber, 166 La. 1014 , 118 So. 117 . The public policy which was expressed in that decision was embodied in Act No. 133 of 1934, which declares that it shall be against public policy for a contract of employment to have a clause forbidding the employee to engage in any competing business at the termination of the contract, and that any such clause shall be null. The contract containing stick a clause in this case purports to be a co-partnership agreement, but public policy forbids such a clause as well in such a contract as we have here as in a contract of employment.””
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.