Samuel Stores, Inc. v. Abrams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 6 district · 81 state decisions

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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`[t]he public have an interest in every person's carrying on his trade freely; so has the individual. All interference with individual liberty of action in trading, and all restraints of trade of themselves, if there is nothing more, are contrary to public policy, and therefore void. That is the general rule. But there are exceptions: restraints of trade and interference with individual liberty of action may be justified by the special circumstances of a particular case. It is a sufficient justification, and, indeed, it is the only justification [in the absence of statute], CT Page 1355-I if the restriction is reasonable — reasonable, that is, in reference to the interests of the parties concerned, and reasonable in reference to the interests of the public, so framed and so guarded as to afford adequate protection to the party in whose favor it is imposed, while at the same time it is in no way injurious to the public.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Daniel v. Keane Agency, Inc. v. Butterworth, No. 31 31 81 (Feb. 22, 1995) · Milwaukee Linen Supply Co. v. Ring

2. “`a large scope for freedom of contract and a correspondingly large restraint of trade' is allowable.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 6429 - Sagarino v. Sci Connecticut Funeral Serv., No. Cv00-0499737 (May 22, 2000) · 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 10451 - Prf of Connecticut, Inc. v. Gosselin, No. Cv93-0703860s (Dec. 3, 1993)

3. “In dealing with a restrictive stipulation between an employer and an employee, as in this case, in order that the court may uphold and enforce the restriction, if it is not otherwise contrary to public policy, the court must find that the facts alleged disclose a restriction on the employee reasonably necessary for the fair protection of the employer's business or rights, and not unreasonably restricting the rights of the employee, due regard being had to the interests of the public, and the circumstances and conditions under which the contract is to be performed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 13450 - Express Scripts, Inc. v. Sirowich, No. Cv02-0077109s (Oct. 24, 2002)