Greenan v. Ernst’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
4
states following
March 1989
most recently cited
3 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld · Ringer v. Finfrock · Tucker v. Tucker · Provident Trust Co. v. Rankin · E. W. Coast Service Corporation v. Papahagis
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In partnership accounting the allowance of interest is not a matter of right but a matter of discretion and '. . . the general rule appears to be that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, interest is not to be allowed on partnership accounts until after a balance is struck, but may be charged if under the circumstances of the particular case the equities so require’ : 40 Am.Jur. § 353, p. 378. In Gyger’s Appeal, 62 Pa. 73, 79 , Mr. Justice Sharswood, speaking for this Court, characterized as ‘the safest principle to adopt in view of the confidential relation of the parties, and the variety and complication of such accounts’ the rule that ‘the allowance or refusal of interest depends upon the circumstances of each particular case.’ See also: Rehill v. McTague, 114 Pa. 82 , 7 A. 224 . In Goodwill v. Heim, 212 Pa. 595, 597 , 62 A. 24 , this Court said: ‘. . . The general rule is that interest will not be allowed on partnership accounts until there has been a settlement of the same. It is true this court has frequently said that the allowance or refusal of interest in the settlement of partnership accounts depends upon the circumstances of each particular case: Gyger’s Appeal, 62 Pa. 73 ; Grubb’s Appeal, 66 Pa. 117 ; Jones v. Farquhar, 186 Pa. 386 , 40 A. 1134 ; Brenner v. Carter, 203 Pa. 75 ; Kelley v. Shay, 206 Pa. 215 , 55 A. 927 . Interest should not be allowed on partnership accounts before there has been an accounting or settlement of the same unless under the p”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stotsenburg v. Frost
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.