Marshall v. Covington’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently January 2009
17 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 Granger v. Craven · Wormward v. Taylor · 6 Ill. App. 2d 178 - Bauer v. Sawyer · Ashbauth v. Davis · Houser v. Hobart
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“will be enforced when they are reasonable, as applied to the covenantor, the covenantee, and the general public; they are not against public policy, and any detriment to the public interest in the possible loss of the services of the covenantor is more than offset by the public benefit arising out of the preservation of the freedom of contract.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““We conclude that the restriction here imposed is reasonable both as to duration and territorial extent. It is not against public policy. The detriment or incom venience to the public which may be in volved is not sufficient to justify denial to the plaintiffs of the legitimate protection provided for by their contract. Hardship to the defendant is not, standing alone, a ground for granting relief. [Referring to defendant’s contention he should be relieve^ from the restrictive provision of the agreement.] He was sui juris. He does not contend that he was misled in entering into the agreement, or that there was any failure on the part of plaintiffs'to perform. As applied to him the limitations are not unreasonable nor unduly oppressive, and being supported by a consideration, he is bound by his contract to comply. Such a restrictive covenant in a contract between members of a learned profession may be regarded as distasteful and out of harmony with the dignity of professional men; but the courts must be guided by the overriding public interest in the preservation of the freedom of contract.” (Emphasis added.) 81 Idaho at 206 , 339 P.2d at 508 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Each Member of this Association (whether now a Member or afterwards becoming a Member) does hereby agree that in the event of his separation from this Association, in any manner or for any cause, he shall not practice medicine or surgery within a radius of twenty-five (25) miles from Twin Falls, Idaho, for a period of two (2) years following such separation. The Executive Committee shall have authority in its discretion to waive the restrictions of this Article in any case. Members who have ten (10) years’ active practice in the Association and have attained the age of sixty-five are not bound by this restriction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dick v. Geist
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.