Gant v. Warr’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably Cherry, Bekaert & Holland v. Brown (1991), 183 N.J. Super. 434 - MAILMAN, ROSS, ETC. v. Edelson (1982)
2 federal appellate · 38 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 Hill v. Rice · Odess v. Taylor · Employers Ins. Co. of Alabama v. Johnston · Denson v. Foote
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Assignment of error No. 6 is to the effect that the lower court erred `in finding as a fact or concluding as a matter of law that the agreement between complainant (appellant) and respondent (appellee) * * * is void under Section 22 of Title 9 of the 1940 Code of Alabama (Recompiled in 1958) [now § 8-1-1(a), Code 1975] and does not come within the protection and purview of Sections 23 and 24 of the said Title 9 [now § 8-1-1(b) and (c)].' "These sections are as follows: "`§ 22. Contract in restraint of trade, void. Every contract by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, otherwise than is provided by the next two sections, is to that extent, void. "`§ 23. Exceptions in favor of purchaser of good will and employer. One who sells the good will of a business may agree with the buyer, and one who is employed as an agent, servant, or employee may agree with his employer, to refrain from carrying on or engaging in a similar business and from soliciting old customers of such employer within a specified county, city, or part thereof, so long as the buyer or any person deriving title to the good will from him, and so long as such employer carries on a like business therein. "`. . . .' ". . . . "Even a specific covenant not to compete in a profession, trade, or business is void under Section 22, supra, unless within the limited exceptions created by Section 23, supra. Joseph v. Hopkins, 276 Ala. 18 , 158 So.2d 660 . "As pointed”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[H]aving included `profession' in § 22 [§ 8-1-1(a)] and omitted this term in § 24 [§ 8-1-1(c) ], the omission in § 24 of `professions' indicates an affirmative inference that the legislature did not intend to include `professions' in § 24, such interpretation being aided by resort to the maxim `Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.'"”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Having included `profession' in Section 22, and omitted this term in Section 23, an affirmative inference is created that the legislature did not intend to include professions in Section 23, such interpretation being aided by resort to the maxim `expressio unius est exclusio alterius.' See Weill v. State ex rel. Gaillard , 250 Ala. 328 , 34 So.2d 132 ; City of Birmingham v. Brown , 241 Ala. 203 , 2 So.2d 305 ."”
2 later decisions 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.