Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 224 F.2d 693 - Welcome Wagon, Inc. v. Morris

Welcome Wagon, Inc. v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis

224 F.2d 693 · 1955

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
8
states following
August 2012
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably Richardson v. Paxton Company (1962), Foti v. Cook (1980)

7 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

901955196019701980199020002010decided

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 Kadis v. . Britt · Arthur Murray Dance Studios of Cleveland, Inc. v. Witter · 140 Ohio St. 499 - Briggs v. Butler · Love v. Miami Laundry Co. · Grand Union Tea Company v. Walker

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

  1. ““"'"Modern courts have usually, in passing on these contracts, employed three criteria: (1) Is the restraint, from the standpoint of the employer, reasonable in the sense that it is no greater than is necessary to protect the employer in some legitimate business interest? (2) From the standpoint of the employee, is the restraint reasonable in the sense that it is not unduly harsh and oppressive in curtailing his legitimate efforts to earn a livelihood? (3) Is the restraint reasonable from the standpoint of a sound public policy?””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`... [T]hat she will not during the term of this employment, and for a period of five whole years thereunder, engage directly or indirectly, for herself or as a representative or employee of others, in the same kind or similar business as that engaged in by the said Thomas W. Briggs, under the trade name of the Welcome Wagon Service Company and its subsidiaries, (1) in Gastonia, N.C., and or (2) in any other city, town, borough, township, village, province or other place in the United States or Canada in which said Thomas W. Briggs, under any of said trade names, is then engaged in rendering his said services, and/or (3) in any city, town, borough, township, village, province or other place in the United States or Canada in which said Thomas W. Briggs, under any of said trade names, has been or has signified his intention to be engaged in rendering his said services.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Even if the restrictive covenant be not void, so that a suit at law for damages arising out of a breach of the covenant might lie, we think this covenant here might fairly be characterized as harsh and oppressive. And equity is slow to enforce such contracts through its extraordinary remedies such as specific performance and injunction, remedies that normally rest in the sound discretion of the trial judge. Nor do we think that Welcome Wagon here has suffered anything even approaching irreparable damage.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.