Britton v. Green’s Empirical Analysis
325 F.2d 377 · 1963
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Rio Algom Corp. v. Jimco Ltd. (1980), 260 F. Supp. 704 - Rippey v. Denver United States National Bank (1966)
10 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · William Shields v. Robert R Barrow · Pusey & Jones Co. v. Hanssen · Kelleam v. Maryland Casualty 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is agreed that Seller shall have active charge of the operation of said leasehold estate, and that said premises shall be operated to the mutual interest of all parties hereto as economically as good business judgment will warrant. It is further agreed that the parties hereto will observe the spirit as well as the strict letter of this contract and work at all times to the mutual advantage of each other in the management and operation and development of said lease. * * *”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“the operating contract had the effect of constituting [the defendant] the ... trustee for all the co-tenants”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Doheny v. Wexpro Company · Doheny““When we come to weighing the relative rights of the parties, i. e., the right of the mortgagee to his Receiver and the right of the absent co-tenants to the benefit of their operating contract, it is not inappropriate to consider that the mortgagee seeks to protect the co-tenancy against an unfaithful operating trustee. He seeks to conserve the property for the benefit of all, and the unfaithful trustee should not be allowed to plead the indispensability of absent parties in avoidance of the proceedings to bring her to account. “Viewed in this light, our situation is comparable to the capacity of less than all the beneficiaries of a trust to have a trustee removed, if he has so conducted himself that he ought to be removed, for * * [n]o beneficiary has a right to have the affairs of a trust conducted unlawfully, and no beneficiary can complain of the removal of a trustee if it is demonstrated that he has, because of misconduct, become an unfit person to occupy that position.’ Wesson v. Crain, 8 Cir., 165 F.2d 6, 9 . The trial Court has found from the evidence that the trustee has breached her contract and her fiducial obligations, and that the property is in danger of dissipation. If the pendente lite Receivership is a detrimental interference with the contract rights of the absent parties, there is ample opportunity for intervention to assert those rights, or even a claim for tortious interference.” 325 F.2d at 384 [Emphasis supplied].”
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.