Latta v. Kilbourn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

96 federal appellate · 12 district · 64 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 210 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[I]t being well settled that one partner cannot, directly or indirectly, use partnership assets for his own benefit; that he cannot, in conducting the business of a partnership, take any profit clandestinely for himself; that he cannot carry on the business of the partnership for his private advantage; that he cannot carry on another business in competition or rivalry with that of the firm * * *; that he cannot be permitted to secure for himself that which it is his duty to obtain, if at all, for the firm of which he is a member; nor can he avail himself of knowledge or information which may be properly regarded as the property of the partnership * * *.” Latta v. Kilbourn (1893), 150 U.S. 524, 541 , 14 S.Ct. 201, 207 , 37 L.Ed. 1169, 1175 .”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Williamson v. Monroe · McGahey v. Oregon King Mining Co.

2. ““It is well settled by the decisions of this court that where the purpose of the suit is to obtain an account, such as that prayed for by the bill in this case and directed by the order of October 27, 188(5, the decree is of such an interlocutory character that no appeal will He therefrom. Beebe v. Russell, 60 U. S. (19 How.) 283, 285, 15 L. Ed. 668 ; Green v. Fisk, 103 U. S. 518 , 26 L. Ed. 486 ; Keystone Manganese & I. Co. v. Martin, 132 U. S. 91 [ 10 Sup. Ct. 32 ] 33 L. Ed. 275 ; Lodge v. Twell, 135 U. S. 232 [ 10 Sup. Ct. 745 ] 34 L. Ed. 153 ; McGourkey v. Toledo & O. C. R. Co., 146 U. S. 544 , 550 [ 13 Sup. Ct. 170 ] 36 L. Ed. 1083 , 1085. In this last; case the authorities are thoroughly reviewed as to what constitutes a filial decree, and it was laid down as the general rule that if the court made the decree fixing the rights and liabilities of the parties, and thereupon referred the case to a master for a ministerial purpose only, and no further proceedings in court are contemplated, the decree is final, but if it referred the case to him for a judicial purpose, as to state an account between the parties, upon which a further decree is to be entered, the decree is not final.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Odbert v. Marquet · Marian Coal Co. v. Peale

3. ““That if a member of a partnership firm avails himself of information obtained by him in the course of the transaction of the partnership business, or by reason of his connection with the firm, for any purpose within the scope of the partnership business, or for any purpose which would compete with the partnership business, he is liable to account to the firm for any benefit he may have obtained from the use of such information; but if he uses the information for purposes which are wholly without the scope of the partnership business, and not competing with it, the firm is not entitled to an account of such benefits.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McGahey v. Oregon King Mining Co.