Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 46 WASH 74 - Finn v. Young

Finn v. Young’s Empirical Analysis

1907

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
November 1969
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1969

5 state decisions

201907191019201930194019501960decided

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 Jennings v. Rickard · Caldwell v. Davis

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Upon these facts, which we must consider as true, we do not hesitate to say that the trial court erred in granting a nonsuit and taking the case from the jury. The rule is that partners must observe the utmost good faith towards each other in all their transactions. “ ‘The same rules and tests are to be applied to the conduct of partners as are ordinarily applicable to that of trustees and agents.’ 22 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2d ed.), p. 115. “ ‘A sale by one partner to another of his partnership interest will not be sustained unless made for a fair consideration and upon full disclosure by the vendee to the vendor of whatever information he has as to the value of such property; and concealment of a material fact by the party whose duty it is to disclose it is sufficient to annul the compact.’ 22 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2d ed.), p. 105. “See, also, Caldwell v. Davis, 10 Colo. 481 , 15 Pac. 696 , 3 Am. St. 599; Jennings v. Rickard, 10 Colo. 395 , 15 Pac. 677 ; Wright v. Duke, 36 N. Y. Supp. 853 . It was the duty of the respondent to fully inform the appellant of his contract with Carroll, and of the fact that Carroll would, within the ninety days, take up the option and pay the purchase price of $35,000. He did not do so, but deceived the appellant into the belief that Carroll would be unable to take the property.””
    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.