Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 215 SW 846 - Fink v. Brown

Fink v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

1919

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
1
states following
May 1971
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently May 1971 · most notably Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Strauss (1922), Davis v. Gilmore (1951)

6 federal appellate · 40 state decisions

1601919192019301940195019601970decided

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 Meehan v. Valentine · Freeman v. Huttig Sash & Door Co. · Buzar v. First National Bank of Greenville · Beecher v. Bush · Kelley Island Lime & Transport Co. v. Masterson

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

  1. ““First. It is sufficient to constitute a partnership that the parties are to have a community of interest in the profits as such. “Second. In determining the question of whether a partnership exists, the actual relation consequent upon the engagement of the parties will be looked to; and as to creditors the court will ordinarily apply the doctrine that the party who shares the profits must also share the liabilities, unless it appears that the parties intended and constituted a different relation, in effect excluding that of partnership.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““There existed by his tacit agreement a community of interests, the common enterprise, its operation for the joint account, and a right in the owner of each interest to share as a principal in its profits as- such, which under the established rule in this state is a recognized test of the relation,””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Considered in connection with the other provisions of the contract showing that the relationship of lessor and lessees were thereby intended and constituted, it (sharing of profits) is not puflficient to raise a presumption of partnership.””
    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.