39 Tenn. App. 28 - Wyatt v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently November 2012 · most notably Hoyt v. Hoyt (1963), Haney v. Copeland (In Re Copeland) (2003)
3 federal appellate · 29 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 23 Tenn. App. 244 - Wilson v. Wilson · Yancey v. Marriott · Polk v. Buchanan · Vanzant v. Kay, Thomas & 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The controlling intention is the legal intention deductible from the acts of the parties. It is not essential that the parties actually intend to become partners. The existence of a partnership is not a question of the parties' undisclosed intention or even of the words they use; nor is it essential that the parties have knowledge of the legal effect of their acts. It is the intent to do the things which constitute a partnership that usually determines whether or not the relationship exists between the parties, and, if they intend to do a thing which in law constitutes a partnership, they are partners whether their purpose was to create or avoid the relationship.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In determining whether a partnership exists, these rules shall apply: (1) Except as provided by § 61-1-115 persons who are not partners as to each other are not partners as to third persons; (2) Joint tenancy, tenancy in common, tenancy by the entireties, joint property, common property, or part ownership does not of itself establish a partnership, whether such coowners do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property; (3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived; (4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment: (A) as a debt by instalments or otherwise; (B) as wages of an employee or rent to a landlord; (C) as an annuity to a widow or representative of a deceased partner; (D) as interest on a loan, though the amount of payment vary with the profits of the business; or (E) as the consideration for the sale of the goodwill of a business or other property by instalments or otherwise.”
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.