Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 119 Idaho 702 - Maselli v. Ginner

Maselli v. Ginner’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
3
states following
September 1998
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Nowak v. Nowak · Minich v. Gem State Developers, Inc. · Associates Northwest, Inc. v. Beets · Stearns v. Williams · Easter v. McNabb

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

  1. “The doctrine of “joint enterprise” derives from the principles of agency and partnership law. [Citation omitted.] It is an undertaking to carry out a small number of acts or objectives, which is entered into by associates under such circumstances that all have an equal voice in directing the conduct of the enterprise. The law then considers that each associate is the agent or servant of the others, and that the act of any one within the scope of the enterprise is to be charged vicariously against the rest. [Citation omitted.] Vicarious liability means that, by reason of some relation existing between two parties, the negligence of the first is to be charged against the second, although the second has played no part in it, and has done nothing whatever to aid or encourage it, or indeed has done everything he can to prevent it. The justification for vicarious liability is a rule of policy, a deliberate allocation of a risk. [Citation omitted.] . . . “By limiting the application of the doctrine to an enterprise having a business or pecuniary purpose, we will be avoiding the imposition of a basically commercial concept to non-commercial situations which are more often matters of friendly or family cooperation and accommodation.” [.Easter v. McNabb, 97 Idaho 180, 182 , 541 P.2d 604, 606 (1975)], citing PROSSER, THE LAW OF TORTS § 72 (4th Ed. 1971).”
    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.