Shoemaker v. Estate of Whistler

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that two joint owners of an aircraft had “no pecuniary interest in the common purpose of the search” that was occurring when the plane crashed and Shoemaker’s son was killed
• holding that two joint owners of an aircraft had ―no pecuniary interest in the common purpose of the search‖ that was occurring when the plane crashed and Shoemaker’s son was killed
• rejecting the argument that a joint enterprise exists where one party occupies a position of authority and has overriding control over another
• affirming a take-nothing judgment because there was no evidence of a community of pecuniary interest in the common purpose of the enterprise in question—the Civil Air Patrol search
• discussing elements of joint-enterprise liability

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).