Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 234 Kan. 721 - Goben v. Barry

Goben v. Barry’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
1
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 18 district · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Tetuan v. A.H. Robins Co. (1987), 23 Kan. App. 2d 812 - Robinson v. Shah (1997)

4 federal appellate · 18 district · 23 state decisions

24019841990200020102020decided

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 Modern Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Cinderella Homes, Inc. · Augusta Bank & Trust v. Broomfield · Stricklin v. Parsons Stockyard Co. · Roddy v. Hill Packing Co. · Sheldon v. Pruessner

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

  1. “A fraudulent act generally is comprised of anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealments involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We conclude Goben is entitled to a judgment for one-half the assets and net profits of the joint venture from the beginning. The joint venture assets include all the corporate assets of United Petroleum, Inc. We also conclude Goben is entitled to prejudgment interest on his share of the joint venture distributions to Barry and his family. The judgment shall constitute a lien on the shares of common stock and assets of United Petroleum, Inc. The division of the corporate assets shall be accomplished by a dissolution of United Petroleum, Inc., pursuant to K.S.A. 17-6804(d). “We affirm the trial court’s finding of a joint venture and the award of punitive damages. We modify the award of compensatory damages to include one-half the joint venture net profits from the beginning thereof and one-half the joint venture assets, and remand this case to the district court with directions to dissolve United Petroleum, Inc., and divide its assets equally between Goben and Barry. The district court is further directed to determine the net profit of the joint venture from its beginning and the amount of prejudgment interest on one-half of all distr ibutions made by United Petroleum, Inc., or the joint venture to Bernard Barry, his wife and son in excess of the distributions made to William Goben, except Marilyn J. Barry shall be allowed a reasonable wage for her services to the joint venture. The district court is further directed to enter judgment in favor of William Goben against Bernard ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[In pari delicto ] requires when "the wrong of the one party equals that of the other, the defendant is in the stronger position.” 27 Am.Jur.2d, Equity § 141, p. 676. This requires the court to weigh the wrongful acts of each party. The purpose is to avoid allowing an overwhelmingly offensive act of the defendant to stand merely because the plaintiff's conduct was also wrongful, although slight.”
    1 later decision 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.