Watson v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently March 2000 · most notably 140 Ind. App. 139 - Kavanagh v. Butorac (1966), 152 Ind. App. 497 - Hiatt v. Yergin (1972)
5 federal appellate · 36 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 Commissioner v. Tower · Gamble v. Lewis · Haas v. Holder, Trustee · Fesler v. Bosson · Zumpfe v. Piccadilly Realty Co.
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This being a suit in equity ‘the whole case is drawn into equity, and any item connected with the accounting of the partnership business may properly be adjudicated.’ Lesh v. Bailey (1912), 49 Ind. App. 254, 260 , 95 N. E. 341 . ..... “ A court of equity here had all of the parties before it for accounting purposes, and it properly determined all the rights of all the parties in one action and thereby avoided a multiplicity of suits. (Citing authorities).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“`(1) a voluntary contract of association for the purpose of sharing the profits and losses, as such, which may arise from the use of capital, labor or skill in a common enterprise; and (2) an intention on the part of the principals to form a partnership for that purpose. 9 * * * * * * 10”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The facts and circumstances in this case are such that the court might readily conclude therefrom that Alice C. Keller, Elizabeth Watson and Mary E. Watson ‘intended, between themselves, that there should be a community of interest’ in any increment in the value of the capital and in the profits of their common venture in the operation of the Keller Farm. We find no controlling facts to the contrary, and under these circumstances the law will presume that they intended to form a partnership. [Citations omitted] We believe the evidence here presents a state of facts from which the trial court could legally infer the establishment of a partnership with appellee having a one-fourth interest, appellant, Elizabeth Watson, a one-fourth interest, and appellant, Alice C. Keller, a one-half interest.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Vohland v. Sweet
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.