Parker v. Trefry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 32 state decisions

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

1. ““(1-6) ‘The courts have not laid down an exact definition of the term “joint adventure”; nor is it possible to enunciate a general rule by means of which the question as to what amounts to a joint adventure may be answered, inasmuch as the answer depends largely upon the terms of the particular agreement, upon the construction which the parties .have given it, as indicated by the manner in which they have acted under it, and upon the nature of the •undertaking, as well as upon other facts. * * * It may be stated in .general terms that the relation of joint adventurer is created when two or more persons combine their money, property or time in the conduct of some particular line of trade, or for some particular business deal, agreeing to share jointly, or in proportion to the capital contributed, in the profits and losses, assuming that the circumstances do not establish a technical partnership. * * * To constitute a joint adventure, the parties must combine their property, money, efforts, skill or knowledge in some common undertaking. The contributions of the respective parties need not be equal or of the same character, but there must be some contribution by each coadventurer of something pro-motive of the enterprise. Although it has been contended that the property with which the parties to a joint adventure are to operate must be acquired after the relationship has come into existence, it seems clear that it is immaterial whether the property involved was individually owne”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. McDaniel · Swensen v. McDaniel

2. ““ ‘. . . an agreement between the owner of lots and a building contractor for the construction of houses on the lots, and a division of the profits from the sale of the houses, gives rise to the relationship of joint adventurers, rather than that of master and servant or of independent contractor, where it discloses an intent that both parties shall contribute to the enterprise, exercise control over it, and be accountable to each other for their acts in carrying it out. [Citing eases.]’ ” The court further stated at page 76: “. . . the fact that it [the joint venture] resulted in a loss rather than in a profit is not sufficient to change the character of the transaction from that of a joint adventure to one of employer and employee or of independent contractor.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 203 Cal. App. 2d 360 - Drdlik v. Ulrich