62 So. 2d 190 - Harding v. Wattigney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Plaintiff insists that he never employed Wattigney or authorized the doing of any of the work, and that if Weigel employed Wattigney he had no right or authority or power to do so. Harding, however, admits that he knew Wattigney erected the garage and washroom, and that he saw him at work during various stages of the work, but his story is that he advised Wattigney to leave the premises. Finally he says he told him `All right, if you want to build it, go ahead,' and that Wattigney was `wasting his time.' Wattigney denies that Harding made any statements of such nature to him. "We cannot be led to the belief that Harding was entirely ignorant of the fact that Wattigney rendered the other services during the period of those twenty-three weeks. Harding lived only a short distance away within range of vision and earshot of the buildings, and it is inconceivable that he could have been oblivious to the fact that work was being done on the buildings on his land.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sirone v. Distefano

2. ““In entering into the building scheme, both Harding and Weigel expected to profit therefrom, the former to receive out of the proceeds of the sale of the houses the sum of $2,000 for each of his building sites, while Weigel expected his profit to flow from his end of the venture, that is, the construction of the residences. This agreement amounted to nothing more or less than a joint adventure which is defined by our courts to be a special combination of two or more persons, where in some specific venture a profit is jointly sought without any actual partnership or corporate designation. See Kennedy v. Perry Timber Co., 219 La. 264 , 52 So.2d 847 , and Daily States Publishing Co. v. Uhalt, 169 La. 893 , 126 So. 228 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Illinois Central Railroad v. Pope Construction Co.

3. ““ ‘The relation of joint adventurers is governed by the principles which constitute and control the law of partnership.’ ”■”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Illinois Central Railroad v. Pope Construction Co.