Strand v. Cranney’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 2008
3 district · 4 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 49 Cal. 2d 501 - Holtz v. United Plumbing & Heating Co. · Anderson v. Blair · Toomer's Estate v. Union Pac. R. Co. · 109 Cal. App. 511 - Andrews v. Bush · Bassett v. Baker
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The requirements for the relationship are not exactly defined, but certain elements are essential: The parties must combine their property, money, effects, skill, labor and knowledge. As a general rule, there must be a community of interest in the performance of the common purpose, a joint proprietary interest in the subject matter, a mutual right to control, a right to share in the profits, and unless there is an agreement to the contrary, a duty to share in any losses which may be sustained.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Whether a joint venture exists is ordinarily a question of fact.”
2 later decisions 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.