Nathan v. Bacon’s Empirical Analysis
1909
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 1980
6 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.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It has been held in some states that on a bill for closing the affairs of a partnership, when it is admitted that the firm has been dissolved, the appointment of a receiver follows as a matter of course; but in this state that rule has not been adopted. It has here been repeatedly held that in such case a receiver will be appointed only when it appears necessary to protect the interests of the parties. Renton v. Chaplain, 9 N.J. Eq. ( 1 Stock. ) 62; Birdsell v. Colie, 10 N.J. Eq. ( 2 Stock. ) 63; Cox v. Peters, 13 N.J. Eq. ( 2 Beas. ) 41; Randall v. Morrell, 17 N.J. Eq. ( 2 C.E. Gr. ) 343; Warwick v. Stockton, 55 N.J. Eq. ( 10 Dick. ) 61, 67. I am convinced, however, that in this case the appointment of a receiver is necessary to properly protect the interests of the parties. At dissolution the powers of the partners over the partnership assets continue only so far as is necessary for the purpose of winding up the affairs of the partnership.”
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.