Zeibak v. Nasser’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently September 2001 · most notably 208 Cal. App. 2d 367 - Cahill Bros., Inc. v. Clementina Co. (1962), 95 Cal. App. 2d 82 - Sime v. Malouf (1949)
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 71 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Gray v. Hall · Zimmerman v. Harding · Keiswetter v. Rubenstein · 65 Cal. App. 65 - Freeman v. Donohoe · Hughes v. Gross
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(2) Joint Ventures — Statutory Construction. The rights and liabilities of joint adventurers, as between themselves, are governed by the same principles which apply -to a partnership; and section 2432 of the Civil Code, which relates to the rights of partners on dissolution, is not confined in operation to partnerships, but is applicable in the case of dissolution of joint ventures. -x- * * * * * “(5) Dissolution — Wrongful Conduct — Statutory Construction. Section 2432 of the Civil Code, which provides the rights and remedies of the partners when a dissolution has been effected because of the wrongful conduct of one of the partners, is applicable even though the actual dissolution is effected by a decree of court, when such dissolution is caused by the wrongful conduct of a partner in contravention of the partnership agreement, and the court decrees the' dissolution because of such wrongful conduct. *■»•**** “(8) Remedies — Procedure—Statutory Construction — Due Process— Constitutional Law. — Section 2432 of the Civil Code, relating to the rights of partners on dissolution, is purely remedial in that it provides for a mode of procedure which a partner must be deemed to have consented to when he entered into his undertakings; and in said action, where plaintiff was afforded the right to have his cause tried and determined under the same rules of procedure that are applied to similar actions brought pursuant to the Uniform Partnership Law, and he invoked the process of the la”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““When dissolution is caused in contravention of the partnership agreement the rights of the partners shall be as follows: “(a) * * * “(b) The partners who have not.caused the dissolution wrongfully, if they all desire to .continue the business in the same name, either by themselves or jointly with others, may do so, during the agreed term for the partnership and for that purpose may possess the partnership property, provided they secure the payment by bond approved by the Court, or pay to any partner who has caused the dissolution wrongfully, the value of his interest in the partnership at the dissolution less any damages recoverable under clause1 (2) (a) (2) of this section and in like manner indemnify him against all present or future partnership liabilities. “(c) A partner who has caused the dissolution wrongfully shall have: ii(l) :ji * % “(2) If the business is continued under paragraph (2) (b) of' this section the right as against his copartners and all claiming through them in respect of their interests in the partnership, to have the value of his interest in the partnership, less any any damages caused tO' his copartners by the dissolution, ascertained and paid to him in cash, or the payment secured by bond approved by the Court, and to be released from all existing liabilities of the partnership; but in ascertaining the value of the partner’s interest the value of the good will of the business shall not be considered.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Drashner v. Sorenson““Although this finding might well have been more clearly phrased, any apparent ambiguity therein is completely dispelled by the words of the trial court just referred to. Throughout the findings, conclusions of law, and into the final judgment the trial court consistently adhered to the date July 20, 1934 as the date upon which plaintiff’s interest should be ascertained. Furthermore, it may be said that after December 11, 1932 the acts and conduct of the defendants were wholly inconsistent with a recognition upon their part that they considered the venture had been dissolved ipso facto as of-that date. Notwithstanding the fact that on one occasion the defendants informed plaintiff that they considered he had breached the partnership agreement by his failure to sign the agreement upon that day, up to the date of trial, the parties continually negotiated, each with the other, looking to a settlement of their differences, and during the entire time, to all intents and purposes they resumed and continued the partnership relation.””
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.