Brooks v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

68 federal appellate · 3 district · 120 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 255 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Does it lie in the mouth of the partner who has, by fraudulent means, obtained possession and control of all these funds, to refuse to do equity to his other partners, because of the wrong originally done or intended to the soldier? It is difficult to perceive how the statute, enacted for the benefit of the soldier, is to be rendered any more effective by leaving all this in the hands of Brooks, instead of requiring him to execute justice as between himself and his partner; or what rule of public morals will be weakened by compelling him to do so? * * * The transactions which were illegal have become accomplished facts, and cannot be affected by any action of the court in this case.” Page 80 of 2 Wall., 17 L.Ed. 732.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hoffman v. McMullen · Cook v. Ball

2. ““After a partnership contract confessedly against public policy has been carried out, and money contributed by one of the partners has passed into other forms — the result of the contemplated operation completed — a partner, in whose hands the profits are, cannot refuse to account for and divide them on the ground of the illegal character of the original contract.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Carlisle v. Smith · Hardy v. Jones

3. “The answer to the objection appears to me to be this: That the plaintiff does not ask to enforce any agreement adverse to tire provisions of the act of Parliament. He is not seeking compensation and payment for an illegal voyage. That matter was disposed of when Taylor (the defendant) received the money, and plaintiff is now only seeking payment for his share of the realized profits. As between these two, can this supposed evasion of the law be set up as a defense by one against the otherwise clear title of the other ? Can one of two partners possess himself of the property of the firm, and be permitted to retain it, if he can show that, in realizing it, some provision of some “act of Parliament has been violated or neglected? The answer to this, as to the former case, will be that the transaction alleged to be illegal is completed and' closed, and will not be in any manner affected by what the court is asked to do between the parties.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fryer v. Harker