Lane v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1990
9 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 Johnson v. Peckham · Brown v. Cole · Holcomb v. Lorino · Henshaw v. Texas Natural Resources Foundation · Thompson v. Duncan
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The parties are not in accord as to the law governing our determination of the relationship which was created by their execution of the joint venture agreement just noticed. We believe that our determination must be made under the rule announced in Thompson v. Duncan, 44 S.W.2d 904, 907 (Tex.Com.App., 1932), wherein Judge Leddy said: “ ‘Courts do not treat a joint venture as identical with a partnership, yet it is universally held that such relation is so ■ similar in its nature to a partnership and in the contractual relation created thereby that the rights as to the members are governed by substantially the same rules that govern partnerships.’ “See also, Johnson v. Peckham, 132 Tex. 148 , 120 S.W.2d 786, 788 (1938), and Woodrum v. Cowan, 468 S.W.2d 592, 598 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 1971).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Austin v. Truly“A joint venture is to be conducted by the parties to the undertaking, and the failure of any party completely to perform his part does not forfeit his fully acquired interest. Notwithstanding defaults and omissions, each has an interest in such assets as have been preserved or accumulated. Thus, default by a member of a joint venture will not justify the other members in excluding him from participation in the accrued assets.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Truly v. Austin““To constitute a joint adventure there must be a community of interest and participation in the profits. It is in the nature of a partnership engaged in the joint prosecution of a particular transaction for mutual profit. Holcombe v. Lorino, 124 Tex. 446 , 79 S.W.2d 307 . “For a joint adventure to exist there must be a community of interest both as to the profits and losses, if any.” (emphasis supplied)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ives v. Watson
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.