Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 507 SW2D 592 - Security Services, Inc. v. Priest

Security Services, Inc. v. Priest’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
3
states following
July 1987
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Weatherford Oil Tool Company v. Campbell · Economy Grocery Stores Corp. v. McMenamy · Frierson v. Sheppard Building Supply Co. · Granger v. Craven · Spinks v. Riebold

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

  1. ““We conclude that plaintiff has not established a clear right to enforcement of the covenant against competition. Such covenants are not favored by the courts because of the public policy against restraints of trade and the hardship resulting from interference with a man’s means of livelihood, [citations omitted] . The burden is on the former employer to go beyond the terms of the employment contract and establish by satisfactory evidence both the necessity for and the reasonableness of the restraint on competition which he seeks to enforce, [citations omitted].” Id., at 594, 595 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““If the contract is terminable at the will of the employer, the covenant [not to compete] does not for that reason alone lack consideration_ There is authority, however, to the effect that even though the employment may be terminated at will, equity may deny enforcement of the covenant if the employer acts arbitrarily and unreasonably in discharging the employee.” Id. at 595 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““In my opinion the judgment should be affirmed on the sole ground that plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence that defendant’s admitted competitive endeavours have damaged plaintiff’s business so as to justify the issuance of an injunction. Such being true the court did not abuse its discretion in denying equitable relief.” Id., at 596 .”
    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.