Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 127 F.2d 853 - Porter v. Cooke

Porter v. Cooke’s Empirical Analysis

127 F.2d 853 · 1942

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
December 2012
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently December 2012

7 federal appellate · 1 district ·

4019421950196019701980199020002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 118

Relies on McDuffie v. Walker · New Orleans & N. E. R. v. Louisiana Const. & Imp. Co. · W. F. Potts Son & Co. v. Cochrane · Bowersock Mills & Power Co. v. Joyce · Cochrane v. W. F. Potts Son & 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““«- * * whatever in law a joint adventurer, this ease law hybrid of recent origin and undetermined connotation may be, and however difficult to distinguish in particular cases between joint adventures and partnerships, some courts having gone so far as to say that they are subject to the same rules and principles, it is as fundamental to the existence of a joint adventure as it is to the existence of a partnership, that there be a contract between the parties that they are or are to be joint adventurers. As in partnerships, whatever the case as to outsiders, as between the members the relationship of joint adventurers is a matter of intent and arises only where they intend and agree to associate themselves as such. 30 Am.Jur. page 681. It being established here both upon the findings and upon the facts the record discloses, that Cooke never intended to be and never was, either a partner or a joint adventurer with the plaintiffs, the whole theory of recovery based upon the contention that he was, falls to the ground. * * -»»”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.