Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 17 Mass. App. Ct. 558 - Brown v. Gerstein

17 Mass. App. Ct. 558 - Brown v. Gerstein’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

92
cited by 92 later decisions
3
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 10 district · 60 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Patriot Cinemas, Inc. v. General Cinema Corp. (1987), Fay v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n (1995)

11 federal appellate · 10 district · 60 state decisions

4001984199020002010decided

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 Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. · Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co. · Shoup Voting Machine Corp. v. Datamedia Computer Service, Inc. · Slaney v. Westwood Auto, Inc. · Linthicum v. Archambault

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

  1. “(1) that the would-be partner has held himself out as a partner; (2) that such holding out was done by the defendant directly or with his consent; (3) that the plaintiff had knowledge of such holding out; and (4) that the plaintiff relied on the ostensible partnership to his prejudice.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he practice of law constitutes 'trade or commerce' for purposes of liability under c. 93A,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “3 Appellees' Brief at 1. Gosselin, therefore, relies on the doctrine of partnership by estoppel to hold Appellees liable for O'Dea's alleged malpractice. To prevail under this doctrine, a plaintiff must prove four elements:”
    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.