Lewis v. Short’s Empirical Analysis
818 F.2d 693 · 1987
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Marchiando State of Illinois Department of Lottery, Lewis v. Scott (1996)
17 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 523
Relies on Davis v. Aetna Acceptance Co. · Irving Trust Company v. Bowditch · Ragsdale v. Haller · Chapman v. Forsyth · Runnion v. Pedrazzini
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Joint ventures have been compared most often with partnerships. A distinction is recognized, but not by all authorities, and admittedly the distinction is difficult. (p. 23) Admittedly, it is difficult to distinguish between joint ventures and partnerships. The relations of the parties to a joint venture and the nature of their association are so similar and closely akin to a partnership that it is ordinarily held that their rights, duties, and liabilities are to be tested by rules which are closely analogous to and substantially the same, if not exactly the same, as those which govern partnerships, (p. 24) The relationship between joint ventur-ers, like that existing between partners, is fiduciary in character and imposes upon all the participants the obligation of loyalty to the joint concern and of the utmost good faith, fairness, and honesty in their dealings with each other with respect to matters pertaining to the enterprise. This is especially true as to the participants in a joint venture who are entrusted with the conduct thereof and the control of the property constituting the subject matter of the enterprise, (p. 69)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he broad, general definition of fiduciary a relationship involving confidence, trust and good faith is inapplicable in the dischargeability context.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Because the broad general definition of fiduciary — a relationship involving confidence, trust and good faith — is inapplicable in the dischargeability context, ordinary commercial relationships are excluded from the reach of Section 524(a)(4). The trust must have been created before the act of wrongdoing. The debtor must have been a trustee before the wrong and not a trustee ex maleficio. Thus, constructive or implied trusts are excluded, but statutory trusts are not. Although the concept of fiduciary capacity is a narrowly defined question of federal law, state law can be consulted to determine when a trust exists.” In re Short, 818 F.2d 693 , 695 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that a joint-venturer was a fiduciary under Washington partnership law).”
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.