System Concepts, Inc. v. Dixon’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably Hopper v. All Pet Animal Clinic, Inc. (1993), Hill v. Mobile Auto Trim, Inc. (1987)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 25 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 Columbia Ribbon & Carbon Manufacturing Co. v. A-1-A Corp. · H & R BLOCK, INC. v. Lovelace · 8 Wash. App. 600 - Holmes Harbor Water Co. v. Page · Johnson v. Ward · 137 W. Va. 605 - Pancake Realty Co. v. Harber
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.
“[T]he granting or refusing of injunction rests to some extent within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its judgment ... will not be disturbed on appeal unless it can be said the court abused its discretion, or that the judgment rendered is clearly against the weight of the evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) when it appears by the pleading on file that a party is entitled to the relief demanded, and such relief, or any part thereof, consists in restraining the commission or continuance of some act complained of, either for a limited period or perpetually; (2) when it appears from the pleadings or by affidavit that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce great or irreparable injury to the party seeking injunctive relief; (3) when it appears during the litigation that either party is doing or threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act in violation of the rights of another party respecting the subject matter of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual; (4) in all other cases where an injunction would be proper in equity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Under the Rose Park reasoning, this goodwill alone would be considered a pro-tectible interest which SCI could justifiably secure through a restrictive covenant. More recently, however, this Court has held that to justify enforcement of a restrictive employment covenant by injunctive relief the employer must show not only goodwill, but that the services rendered by the employee were special, unique or extraordinary.”
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.