Timmermann v. Timmermann’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably 95 Ill. 2d 91 - Couri v. Couri (1983), Beckman v. Farmer (1990)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 37 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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.
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.
“[i]n the alternative, the withdrawing partner may allow the business to continue or accept the fact that it has continued”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he former partner is not merely winding up the affairs of the partnership, receiving money due, paying firm debts and dividing the surplus, for the purposes of liquidation, but is expending time, skill labor in carrying on the business that additional profits may be earned for the former partnership’s benefit. In such case, this former partner stands in the position of stranger who has been employed to perform such services. Appellants could have employed managers and no question could be raised as to this expense. They were entitled to be paid for the services they performed ... the court below must determine what is the fair value of such services by a consideration of the nature of the work, the time spent, and the skill used.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Shepherd v. Griffin““53-331. Causes of Dissolution. — Dissolution is caused: 1. Without violation of the agreement between the partners. a. . b. By express will of any partner when no definite term or particular undertaking is specified. c. By the express will of all the partners who have not assigned their interests or suffered them to be charged for their separate debts, either before or after the termination of any specified term or particular undertaking. 2. In contravention of the agreement between the partners, where the circumstances do not permit a dissolution under any other provision of this section, by the express will of any partner at any time. . . . ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ramseyer v. Ramseyer
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.