Warde v. Kaiser’s Empirical Analysis
887 F.2d 97 · 1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 2007
2 federal appellate · 4 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 Wisconsin v. Illinois · Linda Sue Edwards v. Travelers Insurance of Hartford, Connecticut, P. v. Jackson, III v. Travelers Insurance of Hartford, Connecticut, P. v. Jackson, III v. Travelers Insurance of Hartford, Connecticut · Taylor v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co. · Emmco Insurance Co. v. Beacon Mutual Indemnity Co. · 22 Tenn. App. 670 - Lichter v. Fulcher
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘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.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘Where the contract interfered with is terminable at will ... the privilege of competition has been recognized. In such a case there is no contract right to have the relation continued, but only an expectancy, which is similar to the expectancy of a business that a customer will continue to do business with it. With such an expectancy of future relations, and prospective advantage, there has been no doubt that a competitor has the privilege of interfering to acquire the business for himself.’ (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.