40 Cal. App. 8 - Coombs v. Burk’s Empirical Analysis
1919
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 1983
2 federal appellate · 8 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 Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co. of Baltimore · West Virginia Transportation Co. v. Ohio River Pipe Line Co. · Gwynn v. Citizens' Telephone 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Whatever tends to prevent competition in business impressed with a public character is opposed to public policy and is therefore unlawful.’ Greenhood on Public Policy, p. 180. “Where a contract affects such character of business, since no restraint, however partial, can be tolerated, the court will not inquire into or consider the extent of the restriction imposed. Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co., 130 U. S. 396 , 9 S. Ct. 553 , 32 L. Ed. 979 ; West Va. T. Co. v. Ohio R. P. L. Co., 22 W. Va. 600 , 46 Am. Rep. 527 ; Gwynn v. Telephone Co., 69 S. C. 434 , 48 S. E. 460 , 67 L. R. A. 111 , 104 Am. St. Rep. 819 ; [Central Ohio] Salt Co. v. Guthrie, 35 Ohio St. 672 . As to private business, the conduct of which does not affect the public welfare, and hence involves no question of public policy, a different rule, applies, under which contracts, if reasonable in their terms, will be enforced. “Concededly in the instant ease the Gas Corporation was engaged in a business impressed with a public character (Gibbs v. Cons. Gas Co., supra),.and from a reading of the contract it is apparent that its purpose in making the same was to prevent defendant from discontinuing the use of gas furnished by it, and, in lieu thereof, obtaining a supply from another company engaged in supplying gas to the inhabitants of the city. That the contract was not only in restraint of trade, but if upheld would tend to stifle competition and give plaintiff’s assignor a monopoly of the business of furnishing a su”
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.