Eagle Star Ins. v. Bean’s Empirical Analysis
134 F.2d 755 · 1943
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 1991
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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 O'Brien v. Woldson · Rosenstrom v. North Bend Stage Line · Keiswetter v. Rubenstein · 1 Wash. 2d 347 - Carboneau v. Peterson · Keisel v. Bredick
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he joint adventurers must have equal voice and control in the operations of the enterprise, but ... one of the adventurers [can] entrust actual control to another. “... By this is meant that each of the parties has an equal right in the management and conduct of the undertaking, and that each may equally govern upon the subject of how, when, and where the agreement shall be performed. If the will or pleasure of one party is to control the others in these respects, there is no joint adventure. “As a corollary to the preceding requirement, it follows that each party must have an equal right of control over the agencies used. This, of course, does not mean that each has the right to interfere at will with the driver to whom the duty of operating an automobile has previously been intrusted. It does mean, however, that each has an equal right of general supervision over the instrumentality, equal authority in directing how the instrumentality is to be used in the performance of the enterprise, and, likewise, equal responsibility for the manner of such performance.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In view of the careful consideration given by the Supreme Court of Washington to their prior cases, we believe it is no longer the law of Washington that there is no joint adventure unless the parties agree, expressly or impliedly, to share the losses, as was indicated in State ex rel. Ratliffe v. Superior Court, 108 Wash. 443, 451 , 184 P. 348 , and Gottlieb Bros. v. Culbertson’s, 152 Wash. 205 , 277 P. 447 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Subsequent cases indicate no departure from the rule: Moen v. Zurich Gen. Accident, etc., Ins. Co., 3 Wash.2d 347 , 101 P.2d 323 ; Manos v. James, 7 Wash.2d 695 , 110 P.2d 887 ; Paulson v. McMillan, 8 Wash.2d 295 , 111 P.2d 983 ; Edwards v. Washkuhn, 11 Wash.2d 425 , 119 P.2d 905 ; Pence v. Berry, 13 Wash.2d 564 , 125 P.2d 645 .”
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.