Holmes v. Lerner

How courts have described this case

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

• applying former law and holding that sharing of profits is evidence of partnership, rather than a required element
• noting that California legislature’s removal of profit sharing from the 15 statutory definition of partnership indicates an intention for “profit sharing to be evidence of a 16 partnership, rather than a required element of the definition of a partnership.”
• “[T]he presence or absence of any of the various elements set forth in [the UPA] ... is not necessarily dispositive.”
• “[T]he 2 distinguishing feature of partnership is association to carry on business together, not agreement to 3 share profits.” (citation omitted)
• “[T]he 2 distinguishing feature of partnership is association to carry on business together, not agreement to 3 share profits.” (citation omitted)
• elements of joint venture or 19 partnership “should be viewed in the light of the crucial factor of the intent of the parties revealed 20 in the terms of their agreement, conduct, and the surrounding circumstances when determining 21 whether a partnership exists”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).