36 Wash. 2d 394 - Rathke v. Griffith’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 2002 · most notably 21 Wash. App. 929 - Dwinell's Central Neon v. Cosmopolitan Chinook Hotel (1978), Delaney v. Fidelity Lease Limited (1975)
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 18 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 Ex Parte Allen · Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Powe · Giles v. Vette · Durant v. . Abendroth · White v. . Eiseman
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person who has contributed to the capital of a business conducted by a person or partnership erroneously believing that he has become a limited partner in a limited partnership is not, by reason of his exercise of the rights of a limited partner, a general partner with the person or in the partnership carrying on the business or bound by the obligations of such person or partnership; provided that on ascertaining the mistake he promptly renounces his interest in the profits of the business or other compensation by way of income.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Again, suppose a person is asked to contribute to the capital of a business conducted by a person or partnership, and that he does so, believing he has become a limited partner, but the certificate required to be filed, is not filed, or being filed is so defective that no limited partnership has been formed. Under existing acts a person in the position described runs a danger of becoming a general partner, if he takes a share in the profits, and still a greater danger if he exercises a limited partner’s right to look over the books and give advice to his supposed co-partners. It is immaterial that he may have thought all things had been done necessary for the formation of the limited partnership, and also that persons doing business with the partnership may at the time they extended credit believe he was a limited partner.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Practically all the differences between the new Uniform Act and the existing statutes are due to the desire of the Conference to present to the legislature of the several states an act, under which a person willing to invest his money in a business for a share of the profits, may become a limited partner, with the same sense of security from any possibility of unlimited liability as the subscribers to the shares of a corporation.”
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.