40 Ill. 2d 535 - Maimon v. Telman’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably 162 Ill. App. 3d 1065 - Ambuul v. Swanson (1987), 55 Ill. App. 3d 108 - Adkisson v. Ozment (1977)
10 federal appellate · 31 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 12 Ill. 2d 487 - Carroll v. Caldwell · 32 Ill. 2d 16 - Galler v. Galler · 31 Ill. 2d 620 - Vogel v. Melish · Ditis v. Ahlvin Construction Co. · Harmon v. Martin
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This court has indicated that joint adventures have, in general, the legal incidents of a partnership. (Ditis v. Ahlvin Construction Company, 408 Ill. 416, 427 [ 97 N.E.2d 244 ]; Harmon v. Martin, 395 Ill. 595 [ 71 N.E.2d 74 ].) Under familiar rules of partnership, if no date is specified in the agreement it may be terminated at the will of either partner. (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1965, chap. IO6V2, par. 31.) Defendant contends that some authorities do not apply the partnership rule to termination and Cites Eagle Picher Co. v. Mid-Continent Lead & Zinc Co. (10th Cir.), 209 F.2d 917 , as supporting such a view. In that case, although the opinion stated that a joint adventure is generally considered a partnership, the court held that there could be no termination of a joint adventure by unilateral action until its purpose was accomplished. “As a general rule, if no date is fixed by the contract of joint adventure for its termination, the agreement remains in force until its purpose is accomplished, or until such accomplishment has become impracticable.” (30 AmJur., Joint Adventures, sec. 28.) We think the rule is sound.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.