Sentilles v. Kwik-Kopy Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 2017
5 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 302 So. 2d 593 - Orkin Exterminating Company v. Foti · 432 So. 2d 936 - Winston v. Bourgeois, Bennett, Thokey and Hickey · Simpson v. Kelly Services, Inc. · Broyles v. Baton Rouge Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Board · 630 So. 2d 923 - Francois Chiropractic Center v. Fidele
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... In his reasons for judgment, the trial judge noted that Louisiana has a strong public policy against enforcement of non-competition agreements between employers and employees. This policy existed and was followed in caselaw before it was first codified in 1934, in La.R.S. 23:921. See Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Foti, 302 So.2d 593, 596 (La.1974). At the time Mr. Sentilles entered into the franchise agreement with Kwik-Kopy, the statute provided: No employer shall require or direct any employee to enter into any contract whereby the employee agrees not to engage in any competing business for himself, or as the employee of another, upon the termination of his contract of employment with such employer, and all such contracts, or provisions thereof containing such agreement shall be null and unenforceable in any court, provided that in those cases where the employer incurs an expense in the training of the employee or incurs an expense in the advertisement of the business that the employer is engaged in, then in that event it shall be permissible for the employer and employee to enter into a voluntary contract and agreement whereby the employee is permitted [to] agree and bind himself that at the termination of his or her employment that said employee will not enter into the same business that employer is engaged over the same route or in the same territory for a period of two years. La.R.S. 23:921 (prior to 1989 amendments). In 1989, the statute was amended. The new version r”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We then examined the relationship of the partners according to this criteria and concluded that it was not essentially an employer/employee relationship, and therefore the non-competition provision was valid. Id. at 940-941. The Winston decision did nothing to alter Louisiana's longstanding public policy that non-competition agreements in employer/employee relationships are disfavored. However, in order for that policy to apply, the relationship, when examined, must be "essentially" an employer/employee relationship, regardless of what it is named in the contract.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“No employer shall require or direct any employee to enter into any contract whereby the employee agrees not to engage in any competing business for himself, or as the employee of another...”), but was later amended in 1989 to encompass, with certain specified exceptions,”
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.