Spiritas v. Robinowitz’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Stine v. Marathon Oil Co. (1992), Chapman Children's Trust v. Porter & Hedges, L.L.P. (2000)
4 federal appellate · 20 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 Crane v. Tunks · Pittmann v. Baladez · Southland Royalty Co. v. Pan American Petroleum Corp. · Huffington v. Upchurch · Benskin v. Barksdale
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The] designation [“Robinowitz, Trustee”] was made because the parties contemplated that Robinowitz would act for the benefit of certain employees to be named later. Since the venture agreement does not state that “Robinowitz, Trustee” was to take title in a capacity of trustee for the joint venture rather than as “Robi-nowitz, Trustee,” one of the partners, we conclude that the agreement does not create an additional trust for the benefit of the venture. On the contrary, the agreement provides that the relationship of the parties is to be governed by the Texas Uniform Partnership Act. We cannot impose a trust where parties have contemplated another relationship. G. Bogert, Trusts & Trustees, § 45 at 316 (2d ed. 1965). Thus, the use of “trustee” in the deed is merely a description and without legal effect. It is as if title were in Robinowitz individually. Barker v. Temple Lumber Co., 12 S.W.2d 175, 180 (Tex.Com.App.1929), rev’d on other grounds, 120 Tex. 244 , 37 S.W.2d 721 (1931); Annot. 137 A.L.R. 460 , 462-65 (1942). We conclude that the Texas Blind Trust Act has no application here, and that article 6132b, § 10(3) of the Texas Uniform Partnership Act, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6132b (Vernon 1970) governs. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“stated: Nothing within article 7425b-7 includes a partnership agreement where one of the partners takes title to the partnership property in his name as”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“outside the scope of [its] power under the agreement.”
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.