Akey v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently December 1993
2 federal appellate · 18 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 Daniel v. Goesl · Duval v. Hunt · 183 So. 2d 532 - Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co. of Florida · 228 So. 2d 904 - DeVaney v. Rumsch · Cogley Clinic v. Martini
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(1) Every contract by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, otherwise than is provided by subsections (2) and (3) hereof, is to that extent void. "(2) ... one who is employed as an agent or employee may agree with his employer, to refrain from carrying on or engaging in a similar business... within a reasonably limited time and area . .. so long as such employer continues to carry on a like business therein. Said agreements may, in the discretion of a court of competent jurisdiction be enforced by injunction."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“reasonable interest to be protected... .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The trial judge found that the contract was valid but unreasonable as to the length of time defendant was proscribed from competing with plaintiff. Although there was no question but that defendant had breached the contract, the trial judge held that the plaintiff had not suffered any pecuniary damages. In finding that the provisions of the contract were unreasonable, the trial judge refused to enforce the contract by way of an injunction and instead awarded nominal damages. The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in a per curiam decision affirmed.”
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.