Widdoss v. Donahue

7 Citing cases

  1. Southex Exhibitions v. Rhode Island Builders

    279 F.3d 94 (1st Cir. 2002)   Cited 40 times
    Holding that a partnership did not exist because the parties did not share profits and losses, file partnership tax returns, own property jointly, or operate under a shared name

    , In re Hassiepen, 269 Ill.App.3d 559, 207 Ill.Dec. 261, 646 N.E.2d 1348, 1353 (1995); Hofer v. St. Clair, 298 S.C. 503, 381 S.E.2d 736, 739 (1989).See, e.g., Boeckmann v. Mitchell, 322 Ark. 198, 909 S.W.2d 308, 312 (1995); Widdoss v. Donahue, 331 N.W.2d 831, 833 (S.D. 1983); accord In re Hassiepen, 207 Ill.Dec. 261, 646 N.E.2d at 1353 (factfinder's determination can be vacated only if contrary to "the manifest weight of the evidence").See Boeckmann, 909 S.W.2d at 312; In re Hassiepen, 207 Ill.Dec. 261, 646 N.E.2d at 1353; Tralmer Sales Serv., Inc. v. Erickson, 186 Wis.2d 549, 521 N.W.2d 182, 187 (App. 1994).

  2. Coder v. Jones

    CIV 11-1007 (D.S.D. Mar. 8, 2012)

    The issue of whether or not a partnership existed is a question of fact. See Widdoss v. Donahue, 331 N.W.2d 831,833 (S.D. 1983). Indeed, "[s]ince there is no arbitrary test for determining the existence of a partnership, each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts and the existence of the relationship is a question for the trier of fact except in a case where the evidence is conclusive."

  3. In re Barnes

    Bankr. No. 01-50397 (Bankr. D.S.D. Jul. 11, 2003)

    S.D.C.L. §§ 48-1-4, -5, -6, -7, and -8. Under North Dakota law in 1994, these provisions were essentially the same. N.D. Cent. Code §§ 45-05-05 and -06. The South Dakota Supreme Court has further stated, There is no arbitrary test for determining the existence of a partnership; therefore, each case is governed by its individual facts and the existence of the relationship is a question for the trier of fact, except when the evidence is conclusive. Widdoss v. Donahue, 331 N.W.2d 831 (S.D. 1983); Munce v. Munce, 77 S.D. 594, 96 N.W.2d 661 (1959). The existence and scope of a partnership may be evidenced by a written or an oral agreement, or implied by conduct of the parties.

  4. McGregor v. Crumley

    775 N.W.2d 91 (S.D. 2009)   Cited 4 times

    (e) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (a) and (b), persons who are not partners as to each other are not liable as partners to other persons. [¶ 20.] The existence of a partnership is an issue of fact. Widdoss v. Donahue, 331 N.W.2d 831, 833 (S.D. 1983) (citing Weidner v. Lineback, 82 S.D. 8, 140 N.W.2d 597 (1966); Munce v. Munce, 77 S.D. 594, 96 N.W.2d 661 (1959)). "Since there is no arbitrary test for determining the existence of a partnership, each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts and the existence of the relationship is a question for the trier of fact except in a case where the evidence is conclusive."

  5. Robbins v. Buntrock

    1996 S.D. 84 (S.D. 1996)   Cited 25 times
    In Buntrock, a police officer was asked to "`explain to the jury why [Buntrock] was negligent, and how that negligence caused this accident[.

    Based on counsel's misstatement, which Robbins labeled "unreasonable acts," Robbins moved to recover his costs incurred in taking this deposition. See Wildoss v. Donahue, 331 N.W.2d 831, 834 (S.D. 1983). The trial court denied the motion.

  6. Jonathan Woodner Co. v. Laufer

    531 A.2d 280 (D.C. 1987)   Cited 14 times
    In Woodner the District of Columbia Department of Housing and Community Development concluded that a new law barred further consideration of the contracting parties' applications to convert the rental apartments they were renovating into condominiums. 531 A.2d at 284.

    Thus the trial court was never squarely presented with the issue of whether JWC and NPT were joint venturers. Nevertheless, we hold that this issue must be resolved, because the merits of Laufer's quantum meruit claim depend on its resolution. If there was a joint venture, then Laufer was not entitled to quantum meruit damages. If a joint venture never came into existence, then Laufer may be able to recover in quantum meruit, but only if he presents more proof of the value of his services than he has offered so far. The existence vel non of a joint venture is a factual issue properly reserved for the trial court as trier of fact; we may not decide it for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Bank of California v. Connolly, 36 Cal.App.3d 350, 364, 111 Cal.Rptr. 468, 478 (1973); Shinn v. Edwin Yee, Ltd., 57 Haw. 215, 218, 553 P.2d 733, 737 (1976); see also Tartaro v. La Conte, 157 Conn. 583, 584, 254 A.2d 912, 913 (1969); Widdoss v. Donahue, 331 N.W.2d 831, 833 (S.D. 1983); Fuller v. Fuller, 518 S.W.2d 250, 251 (Tex.Civ.App. 1974). We must therefore remand the case to the trial court for it to make the necessary finding.

  7. Temple v. Temple

    365 N.W.2d 561 (S.D. 1985)   Cited 41 times
    Specifying the factors a trial court is to consider in awarding attorneys' fees

    A partnership is an association of two or more persons who carry on a business as co-owners. Fredrickson v. Kluever, 82 S.D. 579, 152 N.W.2d 346 (1967). There is no arbitrary test for determining the existence of a partnership; therefore, each case is governed by its individual facts and the existence of the relationship is a question for the trier of fact, except when the evidence is conclusive. Widdoss v. Donahue, 331 N.W.2d 831 (S.D. 1983); Munce v. Munce, 77 S.D. 594, 96 N.W.2d 661 (1959). The existence and scope of a partnership may be evidenced by a written or an oral agreement, or implied by conduct of the parties.