Wells v. Whitaker’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Philip Morris, Inc. v. Emerson (1988), Thompson Ex Rel. Thompson v. Skate America, Inc. (2001)
7 federal appellate · 47 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 Barnes v. Graham Virginia Quarries, Inc. · Texas Co. v. Zeigler · Smith v. Grenadier · Attorney General of Utah v. Pomeroy · Wiley N. Jackson Co. v. City of Norfolk
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[The] judgment is severable when the original determination of those issues by the trial court and reflected in the judgment or any determination which could be made as a result of an appeal cannot affect the determination of the remaining issues of the suit, nor can the determination of such remaining issues affect the issues between plaintiff and the dismissed defendants if such defendants are restored to the case by a reversal.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Although there is no generally accepted definition of joint venture, it is said to exist ‘when two or more persons combine, in a joint business enterprise for their mutual benefit, with an express or implied understanding or agreement that they are to share in the profits or losses of the enterprise, and that each is to have a voice in its «control or management.’ [Citing cases]; “Joint ventures are not established by operation of law but by. contracts, expressed or implied, between the parties. There is no evidence in the record to indicate any intention of the parties that Atlas was to exercise any voice in the control or management or to share in the profits or losses of the mixing plant’s . operation or. that it did exercise control and share in the profits. “Profits accruing from .the movement of ammonium nitrate frorn the manufacturer, Atlas, to the processor, Whitaker-Atlas, and then to the ultímate consumer cannot be said to be a sharing of the profits of the processor. The profit accruing must be joint and not several. Otherwise every person, firm or corporation who furnishes materials or supplies in connection with an enterprise might be -termed joint venturers, whether or not they had any such intention.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The proximate cause of an event is that act or omission which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces that event, and without which that event would not have occurred.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.