Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 9 COLOAPP 272 - Lee v. Cravens

Lee v. Cravens’s Empirical Analysis

1897

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
February 1947
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 1947

6 state decisions

30189719001910192019301940decided

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 Beecher v. Bush · Eastman v. Clark · Dwinel v. Stone · Vanderburgh v. Hull & Bowne · McPhee v. Young

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

  1. “■ “Another incident of a partnership is the sharing of losses by the partners. The partnership contract may say nothing about losses, but the right to participate in profits implies a corresponding liability for losses; and it has accordingly been held that an agreement for the division of profits is admissible in evidence as tending to show a partnership. Where, however, an agreement between two or more persons, in relation to the prosecution of an enterprise, provides that one of their number shall incur no risk, and be chargeable with no loss, the agreement is not one of partnership.””
    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.