Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 503 S.W.2d 362 - Cauble v. Handler

Cauble v. Handler’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
4
states following
June 2011
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 2011

2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

6019731980199020002010decided

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 1 Ariz. App. 227 - Hurst v. Hurst · Taormina v. Culicchia · 42 Tex. Civ. App. 297 - Caplen v. Cox · Cook v. Peacock · Nichols 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he non-continuing partner (or his representative) has a first election between two basic alternatives, either of which can be enforced in an action for an accounting. He can force a liquidation, taking his part of the proceeds and thus sharing in profits and losses after dissolution. Alternatively, he can permit the business to continue (or accept the fact that it has continued) and claim as a creditor (though subordinate to outside creditors) the value of his interest at dissolution. This gives him a participation in all values at dissolution, including asset appreciation and good will, and means he is unaffected by later changes in those values. If he takes the latter route, he has a second election to receive in addition either interest (presumably at the local legal rate) or profits from date of dissolution. [Emphasis in original.] [Footnotes omitted.] Crane and Bromberg, swpra, §86 (c), at 495-96.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “it is section 38(1) of [TUPA] that gave the representative of the estate of the deceased partner the right to . . . have the partnership assets liquidated, the debts paid, and the share of each partner in the surplus paid to him in cash.”
    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.