Meyer v. Lofgren’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

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

1. “(1) Except as provided by section 358.160 persons who are not partners as to each other are not partners, as to third persons; (2) Joint tenancy, tenancy in common, tenancy by the entireties, joint property, common property, or part ownership does not of itself establish a partnership, whether such co-owners do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property; (3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partner- ■ ship, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived; (4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is pri-ma facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were- received in payment: (a) As a debt by installments or otherwise; (b) As wages of an employee or rent to a landlord; (c) As an annuity to a widow or representative of a deceased partner; (d) As interest on a loan, though the amount of payment vary with the profits of the business; (e) As the consideration for the sale of a goodwill of a business or other property by installments or otherwise.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Morrison v. Labor & Industrial Relations Commission

2. “A partnership is statutorily defined as “an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit.” § 358.060.1.... A partnership has been judicially defined as a contract of two or more competent persons to place their money, effects, labor and skill, or some or all of them, in lawful commerce or business and to divide the profits and bear the loss in certain proportions. The partnership agreement need not be written but may be expressed orally or implied from the acts and conduct of the parties ..., with the intent of the parties serving as the primary criterion for determining whether such a relationship exists.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. H2O'C LTD. v. Brazos

3. “As we now construe the phrase, it really means that the court should be clearly convinced of the affirmative of the proposition to be proved. This does not mean that there may not be contrary evidence. The word ‘cogent’ adds little, if anything; it means impelling, appealing to one’s reason, or convincing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. H2O'C LTD. v. Brazos