Latimer v. Piper’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is claimed that each of the plaintiffs bought a certain amount of stock in a company and that it was not a joint venture. The testimony shows that the purpose of the parties was to carry out a single business enterprise for profit and that it was a joint venture. See Keiswetter v. Rubenstein, 235 Mich. 36 (48 A. L. R. 1049), in which Fletcher v. Fletcher, 206 Mich. 153 , and Alderton v. Williams, 139 Mich. 296 , are referred to See, also, Lane v. Wood, 259 Mich. 266 . “We are satisfied that the corporation was merely a medium for carrying out the joint venture, and that plaintiffs were not interested in purchasing stock in a corporation but desired only to acquire the property together by the use of this convenient medium, each person taking a unit. The case of Turtur v. Isserman, 2 N. J. Misc. 1084 ( 128 Atl. 151 ), holds that although the employment of the corporate mechanism and the issuance of stock might, on its face, seem to preclude joint ownership, it does not necessarily negative the existence of a joint adventure when such was the manifest purpose of the parties”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hathaway v. Porter Royalty Pool, Inc.