Epstein v. Stahl’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Bank of California v. Connolly (1973), 34 Cal. App. 3d 586 - Vitek, Inc. v. Alvarado Ice Palace, Inc. (1973)
2 federal appellate · 24 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 Lewis & Queen v. N. M. Ball Sons · Nelson v. Abraham · Meyer v. State Board of Equalization · Norwood v. Judd · 95 Cal. App. 2d 82 - Sime v. Malouf
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ The common definition of a joint venture is ‘ “a special combination of two or more persons, where in some specific venture a profit is jointly sought without any actual partnership or corporate designation, or as an association of persons to carry out a single business enterprise for profit, for which purpose they combine their property, money, effects, skill, and knowledge.” ’ (Sime v. Malouf, 95 Cal.App.2d 82, 95 [ 212 P.2d 946 , 213 P.2d 788 ].) The relation of joint venturers is founded on contract. Whether the parties have created such a relationship as between themselves depends on their actual intention. The law requires little formality in the creation of a joint venture. The relationship may be created by oral agreement. (28 Cal.Jur.2d 484, § 6.) The relationship between the parties is not to be determined by the label which the pleader gives to an agreement; it is to be determined by the ultimate facts pleaded. (Smith v. Grove, 47 Cal.App.2d 456, 461 [ 118 P.2d 324 ].) “. . . Whether an agreement to share profits is merely a measure of compensation for services, or whether it extends beyond and bestows ownership and interest in the profits themselves so as to constitute a joint venture, is a question of fact. (Nelson v. Abraham, 29 Cal.2d 745, 750 [ 177 P.2d 931 ]; Milton Kaufman, Inc. v. Superior Court, 94 Cal.App.2d 8, 17 [ 210 P.2d 88 ].) If there was an agreement for a joint venture, the parties assumed the status of fiduciaries and neither one would have a r”
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.