Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 199 AD 880 - Armstrong v. Rickard

Armstrong v. Rickard’s Empirical Analysis

1922

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
March 1991
most recently cited

1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1991

1 district ·

2019221930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Bagley v. . Smith · Deeley v. . Dwight · Bent v. Miranda · Powell v. Maguire

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

  1. ““It is important to observe, that, as regards the parties themselves, a court of equity will not lend its extraordinary aid by appointing a receiver unless an actual partnership inter se be shown to have existed. It is, therefore, in all eases, essential to the exercise of the jurisdiction, that there should actually be an existing partnership, either admitted by defendant or established by satisfactory proof, since otherwise the individual property of a defendant might be taken from him by a receiver, and in the end it might appear that plaintiff had no right. When, therefore, the existence of a partnership is directly in dispute, and is denied by defendant, in an aeti'on for an accounting, the court will not appoint a receiver in limine, especially when there is no allegation of defendant’s insolvency, or of his inability to respond in the event of a final recovery against him.””
    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.