Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 216 Cal. 604 - Staples v. Leidecker

Staples v. Leidecker’s Empirical Analysis

1932

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
June 1962
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1962

8 state decisions

401932194019501960decided

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.

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

  1. “"It has been the plaintiff’s theory throughout that since the oral agreement looked to the formation of a corporation and provided for a division of its stock, any failure to consummate the same must necessarily result in a quasi partnership or joint venture arrangement calling for an accounting at the suit of either party to the contract. In support thereof he cites many authorities announcing the settled principle that when an agreement to form a corporation and divide its stock fails of consummation because of noncompliance with the statute or otherwise, equity in order to do justice will look through the veil and treat the relationship between the parties as one in the nature of quasi partnership or joint venture. We have no quarrel with the authorities stating this principle. They are inapplicable, however, to the facts of this case as found by the court below. The trial court found, in effect, that it was a condition precedent to the functioning of the proposed corporation or of any resulting joint venture, that plaintiff procure and deliver one thousand completed paper dispensers and the dies necessary to manufacture others, and that plaintiff’s failure to perform his part of the contract was the sole and only reason for the inability of the parties to proceed as originally agreed. . . . ‘ ‘ Inasmuch as the plaintiff has failed, and through no fault of the defendant, to perform the obligations imposed upon him as a condition precedent to the defendant’s performance und”
    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.