Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 231 Ga. 85 - Purcell v. Joyner

Purcell v. Joyner’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
2
states following
September 2010
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Avnet, Inc. v. Wyle Laboratories, Inc. (1993), 225 Ga. App. 533 - Allen v. Hub Cap Heaven, Inc. (1997)

6 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

13019731980199020002010decided

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 Durham v. Stand-By Labor of Georgia, Inc. · Rakestraw v. Lanier · Orkin Ex. Co. Inc., So. Georgia v. Dewberry · Richard P. Rita Personnel Services International, Inc. v. Kot · Employing Printers Club v. Doctor Blosser 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Examination of the testimony evidences no “procuring” of [any] breach of contract by [Wyle or Haraway] other than simply stating that there is a job available that pays such and such an amount. [Cit.] There is no evidence of a solicitation with a purpose to harm or damage [Avnet and HallMark] ([cit.]) nor is there evidence [Wyle or Haraway] actively induced, conspired with, or aided and abetted [any of Avnet’s and Hall-Mark’s employees] to break [their] contract^] constituting tortious interference with [Avnet’s and Hall-Mark’s employees’] employment contracts]. [Cit.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “if strictly limited in time and territorial effect and otherwise reasonable considering the business interest of the employer sought to be protected and the effect on the employee.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “larger or more stringent than necessary for the protection of the employer,”
    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.