Schott v. Beussink’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2014
2 federal appellate · 13 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 Mills v. Murray · 51 Ill. App. 3d 239 - Wolf & Co. v. Waldron · Cady v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company · Willman v. Beheler · Seach v. Richards, Dieterle & Co.
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Missouri courts recognize that public policy approves employment contracts containing restrictive covenants because the employer has a proprietary right in its stock of customers and their good will, and if the covenant is otherwise reasonable, the court will protect the asset against appropriation by an employee. In Willman v. Beheler, 499 S.W.2d 770, 777 (Mo.1973), our Supreme Court, in upholding a restrictive covenant among doctors, rejected the notion that public policy should prevent the enforcement of restrictive covenants. The court noted that “[t]here is a counterbalancing public policy which recognizes the interest of the public in protecting the freedom of persons to contract and in enforcing contractual rights and obligations.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Other jurisdictions have held that restrictive covenants in accountants' employment contracts are enforceable and not against public policy. See Perry v. Moran , 109 Wash.2d 691 , 748 P.2d 224 (1987) [cert. denied, 492 U.S. 911 , 109 S.Ct. 3228 , 106 L.Ed.2d 577 (1988)]; Wolf Co. v. Waldron , 51 Ill. App.3d 239 , 9 Ill. Dec. 346 , 366 N.E.2d 603 (1977); Thompson, Breeding, et al. v. Bowlin , 765 S.W.2d 743 (Tenn.App. 1987); Ebbeskotte v. Tyler , 127 Ind. App. 433 , 142 N.E.2d 905 (1957); Enforceability of Covenant Against Competition in Accountant's Employment Contract, 15 A.L.R.4th 559 (1982).”
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.