Roscow v. Bara’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently November 2009
17 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 Bentley v. Edwards · Gantt v. Harper · Laux v. Hogl · Skinner v. Red Lodge Brewing Co. · Wright v. Bowlus
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The next argument made by the plaintiff is that there is sufficient evidence to show that the written contract was modified by parol. This argument is not tenable by virtue of the fact that section [13-606, R.C.M.1947] requires a brok er’s contract for the sale of real estate to be in writing. This court has ruled directly upon this question. (Gantt v. Harper, 82 Mont. 393 , 267 P. 296, 297 .) In that case it is held: ‘Our statute of frauds requires a note or memorandum in writing, subscribed by the party to be charged, or his agent, as a condition precedent to recovery of a broker’s commission upon an agreement authorizing or employing an agent or broker to purchase or sell real estate. [Section 13-606, R.C.M.1947]. This statute has frequently been considered and applied by this court and its provisions are held to be mandatory (Skinner v. Red Lodge Brewing Co., 79 Mont. 292 , 256 P. 173 ) as to the original agreement, as well as any subsequent modification of the terms thereof.’ While appellant argues that certain letters constituted a modification, standing alone they clearly did not do so. She relies chiefly on parol evidence to show modification and even if that evidence did show modification, it would avail her nothing because of [Section 13-606, R.C.M. 1947].” (Bracketed statute of frauds code section revised to present section number.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.