33 Cal. 3d 508 - Leff v. Gunter’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 153 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 255 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Ragsdale v. Haller (1986), Lewis v. Scott (1996)
44 federal appellate · 153 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 McMullen v. Hoffman · Overton v. Vita-Food Corp. · 17 Cal. 3d 671 - Tripp v. Swoap · 61 Cal. 2d 612 - Mass v. Board of Education · 53 Cal. 2d 512 - Laux v. Freed
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 255 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In California, partners are trustees for each other and in all proceedings connected with the conduct of the partnership every partner is bound to act in the highest good faith to his co-partner and may not obtain any advantage over him in the partnership affairs by the slightest misrepresentation, concealment, threat or adverse pressure of any kind.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage““Every partner must account to the partnership for any benefit and hold as trustee for it any profits derived by him without the consent of the other partners from any transaction connected with the formation, conduct, or liquidation of the partnership or from any use by him of its property.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““There is an obvious and essential unfairness in one partner’s attempted exploitation of a partnership opportunity for his own personal benefit and to the resulting detriment of his copartners. It may be assumed, although perhaps not always easily proven, that such competition with one’s own partnership is greatly facilitated by access to relevant information available only to partners. Moreover, it is equally obvious that a formal disassociation of oneself from a partnership does not change this situation unless the interested parties specifically agree otherwise. It is no less a violation of the trust imposed between partners to permit the personal exploitation of that partnership information and opportunity to the prejudice of one’s former associates by the simple expedient of withdrawal from the partnership. “The foregoing reasoning has been well established, and the underlying ethical principles firmly and consistently supported by precedent. In Page v. Page (1961) 55 Cal.2d 192, 197 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 643 , 359 P.2d 41 ], we observed: ‘We have often stated that “Partners are trustees for each other, and in all proceedings connected with the conduct of the partnership every partner is bound to act in the highest good faith to his copartner and may not obtain any advantage over him in the partnership affairs by the slightest misrepresentation, concealment, threat or adverse pressure of any kind.” [Citations.]’ “Even more pertinent to the precise issue before us, we noted furt”
2 later decisions 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.