Cobin v. Rice’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 2017
2 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.
Relationships
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Coastal Steel Corp. v. Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“period. Simply stated, defendant's consistent failure to respond to cash calls constituted a material breach of the partnership agreement. This violation warranted the Chancery Division judge's action dissolving the partnership and permitting continuation of the business by the surviving partners. As we noted, Judge Simon did not base her order of dissolution on defendant's breach of paragraph 14. Rather, the judge relied on N.J.S.A. 42:1-32(1)(c), (d) and (f). We agree with this conclusion. More specifically, we hold that Coyle's failure to respond to cash calls”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[b]y refusing to contribute his share of the partnership's expenses ... and by his unwillingness to execute [refinancing] documents, ... [Hansford was] guilty of conduct that tended to affect prejudicially the carrying on of the business and made it impracticable for the other partners to continue in business with him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“even in the absence of an explicit breach of the [p]artnership [a]greement, Rice's failure to contribute the necessary capital... ma[de] it not reasonably practicable for the plaintiffs to carry on the [p]artnership's business”
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.