Peace v. Conway’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably Hilb, Rogal and Hamilton Co. v. DePew (1994), Pais v. Automation Products, Inc. (1995)
20 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 Duggin v. Adams
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen a contract is terminable at-will, a Plaintiff in order to present a prima facie case of tortious interference must allege and prove not only an intentional interference that caused the termination of the at-will contract, but also that the Defendant employed “improper methods”.... Methods of interference considered improper are those means that are illegal or independently tortious, such as violations of statutes, regulations, or recognized common-law rules ... Improper methods may include violence, threats or intimidation, bribery, unfounded litigation, fraud, misrepresentation or deceit, defamation, duress, undue influence, misuse of inside or confidential information, or breach of a fiduciary relationship ... Sharp dealing overreaching, or unfair competition may also constitute improper methods.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is not unusual in the business world for an employee to leave his employment and start a competing business. When this occurs, inevitably customers of the former employer will desire to continue to deal with the former employee in the new business. Therefore, had [the former employer] desired to prevent [his employees] from soliciting his customers, he could have required his employees to execute covenants not to compete.”
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.