Darden v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Marine Services, Inc. v. A-1 INDUSTRIES (1978), Transit Management of Southeast Louisiana, Inc. v. Group Insurance Administration, Inc. (2000)
2 federal appellate · 28 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 National Oil Works, Inc. v. Korn Bros. · Labat v. Labat · Shushan Bros. & Co. v. Hillcoat · Jeffries v. Moore · Amacker v. Kent
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"First, the parties must have mutually consented to form a partnership and to participate in the profits which may accrue from property, skill or industry, furnished to the business in determined proportions by them. Arts. 2801, 2805 of the Civil Code; Labat v. Labat, 232 La. 627 , 95 So.2d 129 . Secondly, all parties must share in the losses as well as the profits of the venure. Art. 2814 of the Civil Code; Amacker v. Kent, 144 La. 545 , 80 So. 717 . Thirdly, the property or stock of the enterprise must form a community of goods in which each party has a proprietary interest. Art. 2808 of the Civil Code; Belden v. Read & Hunt, 27 La.Ann. 103 ; Chaffraix & Agard v. Lafitte & Co., 30 La.Ann. 631 ; Shushan Bros. & Co. v. Drennan & Hillcoat, 158 La. 480 , 104 So. 214 ."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“The circumstance that plaintiff did not contribute to the capital of the partnership at the time he was invited by defendant to become a partner, does not establish that the parties intended that plaintiff was never to have an interest in the partnership’s assets. The Civil Code does not require that all partners make an investment of cash in the partnership at any time.”
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.