Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 284 SW2D 313 - Montgomery v. Getty

Montgomery v. Getty’s Empirical Analysis

1955

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
3
states following
December 2011
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 2011

6 state decisions

201955196019701980199020002010decided

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 State Ex Rel. United States Fire Insurance v. Terte · Mallinckrodt Chemical Works v. Nemnich · Union National Bank v. Jessell · Renwood Food Products v. Schaefer · 240 Mo. App. 939 - Renwood Food Products, Inc. v. Schaefer

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

  1. ““ * * * We think it obvious that the plaintiff purchased and defendant sold not only the physical assets but the good will of the business, together with defendant’s right of competition, to the full extent of the territory named. The consideration paid, the character of the business, the situation of the parties, their manifest intention, and the express language of the covenant lead only to this conclusion. It was the evident purpose of the restrictive clause to protect the purchaser from competition in the business which he was buying. It is worthy of note that by the express terms of the contract plaintiff purchased, and defendant sold, ‘his undertaking business.’ Defendant agreed he would not re-enter said business within a stated time and area. The agreement not to re-enter the undertaking business is a covenant which forbids defendant to re-engage in or pursue the vocation of an undertaker, and is not limited to the restricted meaning of re-establishing or re-opening an office or place of business within the prescribed limits.””
    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.