Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 81 F.2d 120 - Chisholm v. Gilmer

Chisholm v. Gilmer’s Empirical Analysis

81 F.2d 120 · 1936

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
January 1981
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1981 · most notably Pike v. Wachovia Bank and Trust Company (1968), Sample v. Romine (1942)

15 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions

120193619401950196019701980decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Relies on Richmond v. Irons · Williams v. Vreeland · Matteson v. Dent · Neel v. Pennsylvania Co. · Beuttell v. Magone

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

  1. “`Joint adventure' exists when two or more persons combine in joint business enterprise for their mutual benefit with understanding that they are to share in profits or losses and that each is to have voice in its management.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““A joint adventure is distinguishable from joint ownership and tenancy in common in that the latter lacks the feature of adventure. So the mere purchase of property by two persons each of whom contributes a portion of the purchase price makes them joint owners of the property, but does not establish between them the relation of joint adventurers, . . . However, the nature of the agreement between parties purchasing land jointly in a transaction for profit may constitute it a joint adventure. A sale of jointly owned property is in no sense a joint adventure.” (Emphasis ours.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.