106 Cal. App. 2d 381 - Constans v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Harold D. Blankenship, an Individual v. The Hearst Corporation, a Corporation, William H. Myers, an Individual (1975), Re: Dwight Lundell (2000)
6 federal appellate · 36 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 Campagna v. Market Street Railway Co. · Westcott v. Gilman · 70 Cal. App. 2d 253 - Denning v. Taber · 67 Cal. App. 2d 499 - Kersch v. Taber · 96 Cal. App. 322 - San Joaquin Light & Power Corp. v. Costaloupes
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The question of the existence of a partnership depends primarily upon the intention of the parties ascertained from the terms of the agreement and from the surrounding circumstances. [Citations.] Ordinarily the existence of a partnership is evidenced by the right of the respective parties to participate in the profits and losses and in the management of the business. [Citations.] In ascertaining the intention of the parties, where they have entered into a written agreement, such intention should be determined chiefly from the terms of the writing. [Citation.] While the question of whether a partnership exists is to be determined from the nature of the relation agreed upon rather than the name which the parties have given to it, some weight must be given to the language of the parties themselves. [Citations.] It is the intention as evidenced by the terms of the agreement, and not the subjective or undisclosed intention of the parties that controls.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Eng v. Brown
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.