Hayes v. Muller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 119 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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a special combination of two or more persons, where in some specific venture a profit is jointly sought without any actual partnership or corporate designation.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 878 So. 2d 665 - Coffee Bay Investors v. Wogc Co. · 943 So. 2d 1263 - Moroux v. Toce

2. ““Every transfer of immovable property must be in writing; but if a verbal sale, or other disposition of such property, be made, it shall be good against the vendor, as well as against the vendee, who confesses it when interrogated on oath, provided actual delivery has been made of the immovable property thus sold.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Arnett v. Trace Development Corp. · Little v. Haik

3. “This suit has not as its object the assertion of an interest in an oil and gas lease, nor does it have as its object an attack upon the title to such a lease.... [Plaintiffs'] success is not dependent upon proof that they had an interest in the [lease] in the sense that they had title thereto. Success in their cause depends upon whether they can prove that there was a joint adventure and that as a result thereof profits were derived which were contemplated to be divided among the joint adventurers.... [J]oint adventurers do not have to be co-owners of property used in the business of joint adventure; the property used in the joint adventure may be owned by only one of the joint adventurers and its use only devoted to the purposes of the joint adventure. [Citation omitted.] * * * [T]hat [defendant] did own that lease relates only collaterally to the right to recover a part of the profits from the contract of joint adventure. * * * [Plaintiffs'] claim is for money profits derived from the joint adventure, from whatever source derived consonant with the object of the joint adventure, which was an enterprise for profits to be derived from oil and gas leases and royalties brought about by pooling of their knowledge, know-how, and capital. What plaintiffs have set forth in their petition is that they are claiming their share of the profits from the [lease] not by virtue of any interest in the title to that lease, but by virtue of their joint adventure agreement.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 878 So. 2d 665 - Coffee Bay Investors v. Wogc Co.