Brooks v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There is an implied obligation between general partners that on the termination of the partnership they will account to each other and settle and pay any balances due among themselves. To bring about such accounting and settlement a cause of action will lie. . . . “Unless the partnership business was unsettled, . . . the plaintiff’s cause of action for an accounting arose April, 1908, and was barred in April, 1911. If, as alleged, his partners owed the plaintiff a balance of money, it too was barred in April, 1911. (Civ. Code, § 17, subdiv. 2.) “If there were unsettled accounts, the statute would not begin to run until they were disposed of. (Bushnell, Limitations and Adverse Possession, §§57, 66, 67, 207, 208; 2 Wood on Limitations, 3d ed., § 211 and note.)” (p. 210.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Metz v. Emery · Green v. Kensinger

2. ““The other case cited by appellant (Benoist et al. v. Markey, Tutor, et al., 25 La. Ann. 59 ) is much more to the point. There the firm of Benoist, Shaw, Murphy & Newman had formed a partnership in 1859. Its business was ruined by the Civil War, and there was nothing done towards a settlement of the partnership business until 1866, when suit was begun and a receiver appointed upon the application of the parties. Litigation of several years’ duration ensued. This was a plain case where the statute should not be held to begin to run until a settlement of the partnership affairs had been effected and^until the partners could have an opportunity to commence proceedings under the judgment settling the respective rights of the liquidating partners. “Other cases holding that the statute does not under all circumstances begin to run on the dissolution of the partnership are Holloway v. Turner, 61 Md. 217 , Jordan v. Miller and als., 75 Va. 442 , and Riddle v. Whitehill, 135 U. S. 621 . They relate to partnerships being wound up in due course, realizing assets, satisfying debts, etc. Obviously no statute of limitations would run in such cases.” (p. 211.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Finley v. Gilmore