Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Taquena v. Bob Vale Painting Co.

507 P.2d 539 (Okla. 1973)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Taquena v. Bob Vale Painting Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. Betenson v. Call Auto Equip. Sales, Inc.

    645 P.2d 684 (Utah 1982)   Cited 14 times

    Larrabee v. Royal Dairy Products Co., Utah, 614 P.2d 160 (1980). See, e.g., Murry v. Western American Mortgage Co., 124 Ariz. 387, 604 P.2d 651 (1979); Connor v. Great Western Savings and Loan Association, 69 Cal.2d 850, 73 Cal.Rptr. 369, 447 P.2d 609 (1968); Breckenridge Co. v. Swales Management, 185 Colo. 160, 522 P.2d 737 (1974); Dang v. F and S Land Development Corp., Hawaii, 618 P.2d 276 (1980); Easter v. McNabb, 97 Idaho 180, 541 P.2d 604 (1975); Modern Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Cinderella Homes, Inc., 226 Kan. 70, 596 P.2d 816 (1979); Rude v. Neal, 165 Mont. 520, 530 P.2d 428 (1974); Fullerton v. Kaune, 72 N.M. 201, 382 P.2d 529 (1963); Taquena v. Bob Vale Painting Co., Okla., 507 P.2d 539 (1973); Latham v. Hennessey, 13 Wn. App. 518, 535 P.2d 838 (1975). This conclusion is corroborated by the record, which contains the affidavits of Mr. Terry A. Isom, a certified public accountant, defendant L.A. Campbell and defendant Elroy T. Barlow. Mr. Isom examined the records of Call Auto in March or April of 1980 and found that loans had been received from various individuals.

  2. Martin v. Chapel, Wilkinson, Riggs, and Abney

    1981 OK 134 (Okla. 1981)   Cited 45 times

    The law of partnership and of principal and agent underlies the conduct of a co-adventurer and governs the rights and liabilities of co-adventurers and third parties as well. The law requires little formality in the creation of a joint venture and the agreement is not invalid because it may be indefinite with respect to its details.Taquena v. Bob Vale Painting Co., Okla., 507 P.2d 539, 542 [1973]; Bosworth v. Eason Oil Co., 202 Okla. 359, 213 P.2d 548, 551 [1950].Gragg v. James, Okla., 452 P.2d 579, 586 [1969]; Pfleider v. Smith, Okla., 370 P.2d 17, 20 [1962].

  3. Madrid v. Norton

    596 P.2d 1108 (Wyo. 1979)   Cited 47 times
    In Madrid v. Norton, 596 P.2d 1108, 1120 (Wyo. 1979), the court similarly stated that "[t]here is an inherent injustice in one purportedly holding a right to assert an ownership in property to voluntarily await the propitious event and then decide, when the danger which has been at the risk of another is over, to come in and claim a share of the profits."

    A joint venture sounds in, and is founded upon, contract. Eblen v. Eblen, supra; West v. Soto, 1959, 85 Ariz. 255, 336 P.2d 153; Campagna v. Market Street Ry. Co., 1944, 24 Cal.2d 304, 149 P.2d 281; Transit Equipment Co. v. Dyonisio, 1964, 154 Colo. 379, 391 P.2d 478; Taquena v. Bob Vale Painting Co., Okla. 1973, 507 P.2d 539; Joseph v. Donover Co., 9th Cir. 1958, 261 F.2d 812; West's Digest System, Joint Adventures. The burden of proof of a contract sued on rests on the plaintiff. Black Yates v. Negros-Philippine Lumber Co., 1924, 32 Wyo. 248, 231 P. 398, 37 A.L.R. 1487. The same burden rests on the plaintiff to prove its terms.