Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 204 Minn. 269 - Murphy v. Keating

Murphy v. Keating’s Empirical Analysis

1939

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
7
states following
October 2010
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently October 2010

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions

70193919401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Crescent Motor Co. v. Stone · Cunningham v. City of Thief River Falls · Kokesh v. Price · 127 Ohio St. 57 - Koogler v. Koogler · Howard v. Zimmerman

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

  1. “There are two elements customarily required by the courts to establish joint enterprise, namely, (1) a mutual undertaking for a common purpose, and (2) a right to some voice in the direction and control of the means used to carry out the common purpose. This is well illustrated in Cunningham v. City of Thief River Falls, 84 Minn. 21 , 27, 86 N.W. 763 , 765 [(1901)]; “Parties cannot be said to be engaged in a joint enterprise, within the meaning of the law of negligence, unless there be a community of interest in the objects or purposes of the undertaking, and an equal right to direct and govern the movements and conduct of each other with respect thereto. Each must have some voice and right to be heard in its control and management.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “There are two elements customarily required by the courts to establish joint enterprise, namely (1) a mutual undertaking for a common purpose, and (2) a right to some' voice in the direction and control of the means used to carry out the common purpose.”
    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.