Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 150 Okla. 281 - Forbes v. Becker

Forbes v. Becker’s Empirical Analysis

1931

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
2
states following
February 1963
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 1963

15 state decisions

1301931194019501960decided

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 Rogers v. Harris · Denver v. Roane · Watashe v. Tiger · James v. Coleman · Santa Fe, L. E. R. Co. v. Laune

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

  1. ““ * * * As a matter of fact, there is no universal rule, and it has been held by the highest authorities that there is not even a general rule that entitles a retiring partner to an interest in firm assets, or requires a partner using firm property or firm funds in his business, after the termination of the partnership status, to account for or divide profits so made with a former partner. “In a case where parties, who had agreed to finance the performance of a contract made with the state, violated their agreement after having furnished part of the necessary funds, and yet sued for an agreed one-half of the profits, the Ohio court said: ‘There is, perhaps, no general rule without exceptions, certainly none that will do exact justice in every case, or that may not do injustice in particular cases. There is one general maxim, however, that is seldom found to fail, to wit, that when a supposed rule is so applied as to work manifest injustice, it is most likely that it is either misunderstood or misapplied.’ Durbin v. Barber and Barney, 14 Ohio, 311.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““No special findings of fact or conclusions of law were requested, and, therefore, this court will look only to the judgment and will not consider any review or reference to the evidence made by the trial court in announcing its decision.””
    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.