Ashley v. Lance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that in a five-man medical partnership, where a new partnership agreement was signed each time a new partner was added, the plaintiff doctor could invoke the partnership agreement despite being the only remaining partner after four partners left in concert to start a competitive practice
• “[a]ny partner can, by unilateral action, dissolve a particular partnership by withdrawing from it”
• “In interpreting the partnership agreement, including the restrictive covenant, the agreement must be read as a whole. It must also be construed in the light of the history of the partnership and its purpose.”
• “ ‘A young professional man may be willing to trade his future right to compete in a given community for an immediate and lucrative share in an established practice.’ ” (quoting McCallum v. Asbury, 238 Or. 257, 393 P.2d 774, 777 (1964))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Imperial Litho/Graphics v. M.J. Enterprises
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1986-06-05· cited 37×
• Michael Salewski, D.v.m., App. v. Pilchuck Veterinary Hospital, Inc., P.s., Res.
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2015-08-31· cited 34×
• Robert Emerick, V Cardiac Study Center, Inc,ps
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2015-08-24· cited 29×
• Ashley v. Lance
  Washington Supreme Court· 1972-02-17· cited 25×
• Bassan v. Investment Exchange Corp.
  Washington Supreme Court· 1974-06-20· cited 22×
• Hunter v. Straube
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1975-12-12· cited 12×
• Pietz v. Indermuehle
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1998-01-16· cited 12×
• Pietz v. Indermuehle
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1998-02-27· cited 11×
• Port of Port Angeles v. CMC Real Estate Corp.
  Washington Supreme Court· 1990-05-03· cited 9×
• Logan v. Logan
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1984-01-11· cited 8×
• Emerick v. Cardiac Study Center, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2012-02-28· cited 7×
• Prithvi Catalytic, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (In re Prithvi Catalytic, Inc.)
  W.D. Pennsylvania· 2017-04-25· cited 1×