Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 217 N.C. 658 - Comfort Spring Corp. v. . Burroughs

Comfort Spring Corp. v. . Burroughs’s Empirical Analysis

1940

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
3
states following
April 2000
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently April 2000 · most notably 42 N.C. App. 515 - Manpower of Guilford County, Inc. v. Hedgecock (1979), Huskins v. Yancey Hospital (1953)

6 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

1301940195019601970198019902000decided

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.

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

  1. ““It should first be observed that the only breach of the restrictive covenant alleged is that the defendant has accepted employment from the Spring Products Corporation and is calling upon the customers of the plaintiff. There is no allegation nor evidence as to the territory in which the defendant is calling upon the plaintiff’s customers. ... In truth, there is no allegation nor evidence as to over what territory the plaintiff’s business extends. Therefore we are called upon to decide simply the question as to whether the covenant that the defendant would not accept employment as a salesman or otherwise from the Spring Products Corporation anywhere in the United States is unreasonable and oppressive, and in restraint of trade.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “". . . [I] t is understood and agreed that for the period of five years immediately following the termination of this contract by either party for or without cause, the party of the second part shall not, directly or indirectly, enter into the employ of such corporation, or its successor, or represent same within the entire United States; and the said party of the second part agrees that for said period of five years and in the United States he will not represent or enter the employ of the said Spring Products Corporation in any manner whatsoever.””
    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.