61 Ohio App. 3d 553 - Walter v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably 104 Ohio App. 3d 598 - Hoyt, Inc. v. Gordon & Associates, Inc. (1995), 81 Ohio App. 3d 591 - Akron-Canton Waste Oil, Inc. v. Safety-Kleen Oil Services, Inc. (1992)
22 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 Conley v. Gibson · Temple v. Wean United, Inc. · O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc. · 55 Ohio App. 2d 51 - Juhasz v. Quik Shops, Inc. · Miles v. Perpetual Savings & Loan 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) One who intentionally causes a third person not to enter into a prospective contractual relation with another who is his competitor or not to continue an existing contract terminable at will does not interfere improperly with the other’s relation if (a) the relation concerns a matter involved in the competition between the actor and the other and (b) the actor does not employ wrongful means and (c) his action does not create or continue an unlawful restraint of trade and (d) his purpose is at least in part to advance his interest in competing with the other. (2) The fact that one is a competitor of another for the business of a third person does not prevent his causing a breach of an existing contract with the other from being an improper interference if the contract is not terminable at will.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Matter of Gettys““One who intentionally and improperly interferes with another’s prospective contractual relation (except a contract to marry) is subject to liability to the other for the pecuniary harm resulting from loss of the benefits of the relation, whether the interference consists of “(a) inducing or otherwise causing a third person not to enter into or continue the prospective relation or “(b) preventing the other from acquiring or continuing the prospective relation.””
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.