Phillips v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 19 state decisions

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

1. ““(a) All partners are liable: “(i) Jointly and severally for everything chargeable to the partnership under sections 13 [§ 17-13-305] and 14 [§ 17-13-306].””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Associates Ltd. Partnership · Bergh v. Mills

2. “... It is the established law in Maryland that the legal presumption arising from the ownership of a motor vehicle places the burden of overcoming the presumption on the owner. We see no difference between a master and servant situation and one involving a partnership. We have held that in a collision caused by an automobile operated by the servant of the owner, there is a reasonable presumption that the servant was acting in the scope of his employment and upon the business of his master, and the burden of overcoming this presumption is upon the master by showing that the servant was employed in business other than his employer’s. Grier v. Rosenberg, 213 Md. 248 , 131 A.2d 737 ; Erdman v. Horkheimer & Co., 169 Md. 204 , 181 Atl. 221 ; Jordan Stabler v. Tankersly, 146 Md. 454 , 126 Atl. 65 . Here, where it was shown that a vehicle was owned by the partnership for resale and operated by one of the partners at the time of the accident, there arose the presumption that the car was upon partnership business. It was incumbent at that time for the defendants to show otherwise.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Martin Marietta Corp.

3. ““In a case involving a partnership, the contract of partnership constitutes all of its members as agents of each other and each partner acts both as a principal and as the agent of the others in regard to acts done within the apparent scope of the business, purpose and agreement of the partnership or for its benefit. * * * Partnership cases may differ from principal and agent and master and servant relationships because in the nonpartnership cases, the element of control or authorization is important. This is not so in the case of a partnership for a partner is also a principal, and control and authorization are generally within his power to exercise.” At 219-20.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kay v. Gitomer