Kovacik v. Reed’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably 147 Cal. App. 3d 805 - April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV (1983), 158 Ill. App. 3d 182 - Century Universal Enterprises, Inc. v. Triana Development Corp. (1987)
34 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 20 Cal. 2d 751 - Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Manufacturing Co. · 32 Cal. 2d 265 - Sontheimer v. Pierce · Campagna v. Market Street Railway Co. · Parker v. Trefry · 99 Cal. App. 17 - Irer v. Gawn
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[I]t appears that in the cases in which the above stated general rule has been applied, each of the parties had contributed capital consisting of either money or land or other tangible property, or else was to receive compensation for services rendered to the common undertaking which was to be paid before computation of the profits or losses. Where, however, as in the present case, one partner or joint adventurer contributes the money capital as against the other’s skill and labor, all the cases cited, and which our research has discovered, hold that neither party is liable to the other for contribution for any loss sustained. Thus, upon loss of the money the party who contributed it is not entitled to recover any part of it from the party who contributed only services. *** [I]n such a situation the parties have, by their agreement to share equally in profits, agreed that the value of their contributions — the money on the one hand and the labor on the other — were likewise equal; it would follow that upon the loss, as here, of both money and labor, the parties have shared equally in the losses.” (Kovacik, 49 Cal. 2d at 166 , 315 P.2d at 316 .)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Where, however, as in the present case, one partner or joint adventurer contributes the money capital as against the other’s skill and labor, all the cases cited, and which our research has discovered, hold that neither party is liable to the other for contribution for any loss sustained. Thus, upon loss of the money the party who contributed it is not entitled to recover any part of it from the party who contributed only services. [Citations omitted.] The rationale of this rule ... is that where one party contributes money and the other contributes services, then in the event of a loss each would lose his own capital — the one his money and the other his labor. Another view would be that in such a situation the parties have, by their agreement to share equally in profits, agreed that the value of their contributions — the money on the one hand and the labor on the other— were likewise equal; it would follow that upon the loss, as here, of both money and labor, the parties have shared equally in the losses.” 49 Cal.2d 166, 169-170 , 315 P.2d 314, 316 (1957).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the evidence to support the essential findings and conclusions [of the trial court] must be found in the settled statement or the judgment must fall.”
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.