James v. Herbert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 67 state decisions

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

1. ““Plaintiff is a licensed real estate broker engaged in the real estate business in Palm Springs. In November 1953 she entered into an oral agreement of joint venture with defendants Herbert and Prescott, Jr. It was agreed: 1. Herbert would contribute to the operations of the venture three parcels of realty aggregating 60 acres, which he owned in the vicinity of Cathedral City. He would be paid out of the venture assets for the property at its fair and reasonable value as of the date of the organization of the venture. 2. Defendant Prescott, Jr., would arrange for the financing of improvements which the parties planned to make on the property and supervise construction operations in connection with any residences or other buildings to be constructed thereon. He would receive a reasonable builder’s fee to be fixed by the joint venturers for his services. 3. Plaintiff would actively participate in the management of the business, contribute her services and the use of her real estate office, assist. in the making of arrangements for loan commitments, and cooperate with her coadventurers in the planning of the size, shape, and location of lots into which the realty was to be subdivided and in the selection and choice of the type and kind of construction and other improvements to be erected thereon, and generally to participate actively in the supervision of the enterprise. She would be given an exclusive contract for the sale of all parcels contributed by defendant Herbert to the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. James v. Herbert

2. ““Defendants argue that because Herbert owned the realty and as a part of his contribution to the joint venture he was to sell the realty to it, and the venture and venturers were thus going to acquire an interest in real property, the agreement was within the statute of frauds and unenforceable. In Moropoulos v. G. H. & O. B. Fuller Co., supra, 186 Cal. 679 [ 200 P. 601 ], it was held that where one holding a lease of realty entered into a partnership with another agreeing to the use and possession of the leased property in the business, a valid interest in the lease was thereby vested in the partnership and a formal assignment of the lease to the partnership was not required. In Wilson v. Brown, 96 Cal.App.140 [ 273 P. 847 ], Champagne v. Passons, 95 Cal.App. 15 [ 272 P. 353 ], and Parker v. Trefry, 58 Cal.App.2d 69 [ 136 P.2d 55 ], one of the joint venturers had interests in realty and oral agreements were entered into with other parties for the transfer of those interests to a joint venture. Joint ventures were held to have been validly formed. The agreement alleged at bar is not within the purview of the statute of frauds. (Coward v. Clanton, 79 Cal.2d 23 [ 21 P. 359 ] ; Bates v. Babcock, 95 Cal. 479 [ 30 P. 605 , 29 Am.St.Rep. 133 , 16 L.R.A. 745 ]; Koyer v. Willmon, 150 Cal. 785 [ 90 P. 135 ]; Arnold v. Loomis, 170 Cal. 95 [ 148 P. 518 ] ; Scott v. Jungquist, 179 Cal. 7 [ 175 P. 412 ] ; Fitzgerald v. Provines, 102 Cal.App.2d 529 [ 227 P.2d 860 ] ; Lasry v. Lederman, 147”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Epstein v. Stahl

3. ““Defendants argue that because Herbert owned the realty and as a part of his contribution to the joint venture he was to sell the realty to it, and the venture and venturers were thus going to acquire an interest in real property, the agree ment was within the statute of frauds and unenforceable. In Moropoulos v. C. H. & O. B. Fuller Co., supra, 186 Cal. 679 [ 200 P. 601 ], it was held that where one holding a lease of realty entered into a partnership with another agreeing to the use and possession of the leased property in the business, a valid interest in the lease was thereby vested in the partnership and a formal assignment of the lease to the partnership was not required. In Wilson v. Brown, 96 Cal.App. 140 [ 273 P. 847 ], Champagne v. Passons, 95 Cal.App. 15 [ 272 P. 353 ], and Parker v. Trefry, 58 Cal.App.2d 69 [ 136 P.2d 55 ], one of the joint venturers had interests in realty and oral agreements were entered into with other parties for the transfer of those interests to a joint venture. Joint ventures were held to have been validly formed. The agreement alleged at bar is not within the purview of the statute of frauds. (Coward v. Clanton, 79 Cal. 23 [ 21 P. 359 ]; Bates v. Babcock, 95 Cal. 479 [ 30 P. 605 , 29 Am.St.Rep. 133 , 16 L.R.A. 745 ]; Royer v. Willmon, 150 Cal. 785 [ 90 P. 135 ] ; Arnold v. Loomis, 170 Cal. 95 [ 148 P. 518 ]; Scott v. Jungquist, 179 Cal. 7 [ 175 P. 412 ] ; Fitzgerald v. Provines, 102 Cal.App.2d 529 [ 227 P.2d 860 ]; Lasry v. Lederman, 147 C”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gross v. Raeburn