Creel v. Lilly’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Cochran v. Norkunas (2007), Skok v. State (2000)
2 federal appellate · 46 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 Klein v. Weiss · 51 N.J. Super. 482 - Fortugno v. Hudson Manure Co. · Lafayette Trust Co. v. . Beggs · Gianakos, Ex'r v. Magiros · 31 Wash. App. 339 - Seattle-First National Bank v. Marshall
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in that it only governs partnership affairs to the extent not otherwise agreed to by the partners in the partnership agreement. Creel, 729 A.2d at 393 ; RCW 25.05.015. [7] With few exceptions, not applicable here, partners may”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“RUPA’s underlying philosophy differs radically from UPA’s, [which governed partnerships before the enactment of RUPA,] thus laying the foundation for many of its innovative measures. RUPA adopts the “entity” theory of partnership as opposed to the “aggregate” theory that the UPA espouse[d]. Under the aggregate theory, a partnership is characterized by the collection of its individual members, with the result being that if one of the partners dies or withdraws, the partnership ceases to exist. On the other hand, RUPA’s entity theory allows for the partnership to continue even with -the departure of a member because it views the partnership as “an entity distinct from its partners.” (Internal citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is no express provision in [the Uniform Partnership Act (UPA)] which establishes liquidation by sale as the exclusive mode of distributing partnership assets after dissolution.”); see also Logoluso v. Logoluso, 233 Cal.App.2d 523 , 43 Cal.Rptr. 678, 682 (1965) (holding that court has authority to distribute partnership property in kind); Swann v. Mitchell, 435 So.2d 797, 800 (Fla.1983) (stating that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Disotell v. Stiltner
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.