Ruzicka v. Rager’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably Klein v. Weiss (1978), Riviera Congress Associates ex rel. Lewy v. Yassky (1966)
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 58 state decisions — followed in 14 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.
Relationships
Relies on Hartigan v. . Casualty Co. of America · Williams v. Hartshorn · Lanier v. Bowdoin · 2 E.H. Smith 519 - Williams v. . Montgomery · Geitner v. United State Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“analogous to that of a corporate shareholder.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“support of the premise upon which it rests. But even though we assume that under Puerto Rican law the law of New York rather than the law of tbje forum governs the partnership’s capacity to sue, the argument overlooks § Í222-a. of the New York Civil ’Practice Act, added by Laws 1945 c. 842, which provides that: “Two or more persons carrying on business as partners may sue or.be sued in their partnership name”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The liability of a partner for the debts and obligations of the partnership has been defined and explained in Ruzicka v. Rager, 305 N.Y. 191 , 111 N.E.2d 878, 882 , 39 A.L.R.2d 288 , from which the following is quoted: ‘To some degree the individual liability of a partner is not the ordinary individual liability of one who obligates himself as an individual. Rather, the individual liability of a partner is merely an incident of the partnership liability. Judge Pound writing for the court in Hartigan v. Casualty Co. of America ( 227 N.Y. 175, 178 , 124 N.E. 789, 790 , supra) phrased the conception clearly and concisely as follows: “When a partnership is established, the liability of the individual partners is an incident of the partnership merely, not a separate and independent liability.” We think the Hartigan case and Geitner v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 251 N.Y. 205 , 167 N.E. 222 point this up very clearly. ‘The difference in the relationship of a partner as such and as an individual to creditors, e.g., the unavailability of partnership assets for execution on individual claims and the priorities of firm and individual creditors upon insolvency, further illustrate the general principle that a person who holds membership in a partnership acts, serves and is obligated in two distinct and differing capacities (See Partnership Law, §§ 51, 71; Debtor and Creditor Law, Consol. Laws, c. 12, § 277.)’ “The liability of the partners for an obligation of the partnership, a”
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.