Baugh v. Darley’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently July 2015
18 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 133 Ohio St. 520 - Hummel v. Hummel · Zimmerman v. Zehendner · Boone v. Coe · Cushing v. Monarch Timber Co. · Hale v. Kreisel
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another.... The benefit may be an interest in money, land, chattels, or choses in action; beneficial services conferred; satisfaction of a debt or duty owed by him; or anything which adds to his security or advantage.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““Is appellant’s oral agreement employing respondents as agents or brokers to negotiate on appellant’s behalf the purchase of real estate under the ban of that portion of the Statute of Frauds, reading as follows? ‘In the following cases specified in this section, any agreement, contract and promise shall be void, unless such agreement, contract or promise, or.some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or by some person thereunto by him lawfully authorized; that is to say; * * * an agreement authorizing or employing . an agent or broker to sell or purclwse real estate for compensation or a commission/' Rem.Rev.Stat. § 5825. ■■ (Italics ours.) ■ * * * ) ❖ * ' ■ * “The insuperable obstacle to enforcement of respondents’^ oral promise to negotiate purchase of land for appellant is the-provision of the statute * * *' of frauds that an agreement employing an agent or broker to sell or purchase real estate for' compensation shall be void unless such: agreement be in zvriting and signed by the-party to be charged therewith. That provision applies to contracts between the-owner of the land to be sold and the agent, he employs to make or negotiate the,sale,, and that provision also applies to a purchaser of land or one desiring to purchase land and the agent he employs to make the purchase or negotiate the purchase for him. The statute declares, without qualification, that an oral agreement -employing an agent or broker to sell or p”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Fowler v. Taylor · Harris v. Dunn“[In an action for unjust enrichment, in those cases where there is a proper equitable basis for the same, the measure of damages, by the great weight of authority, is the reasonable value of the services rendered.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.