124 Cal. App. 2d 229 - Augustine v. Trucco’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 105 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably 39 Cal. 3d 18 - Tenzer v. Superscope, Inc. (1985), 65 Cal. App. 3d 990 - Dryden v. Tri-Valley Growers (1977)
7 federal appellate · 105 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 29 Cal. 2d 34 - Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters · 18 Cal. 2d 33 - Imperial Ice Co. v. Rossier · Buxbom v. Smith · Hornstein v. Podwitz · Elsbach v. Mulligan
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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A plaintiff, seeking to hold one liable for unjustifiably inducing another to breach a contract, must allege (and prove) that the contract would otherwise have been performed, and that it was breached and abandoned by reason of the defendant’s wrongful act and that such act was the moving cause thereof. Unless the act complained of was the proximate cause of the injury there is no liablity. * * * ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““.. . And before a broker can be said to have earned his commission, it must also he shown that he produced a purchaser, who was ready and willing to make the purchase on terms satisfactory to his employer, and that he was the efficient agent or procuring cause of the sale. [Citations.] " ‘ The duty assumed by the broker is to bring the minds of the buyer and seller to an agreement for a sale, and the price and terms on which it is to be made, and until this is done, his right to commissions does not accrue.’ [Citation.] It must further appear that the broker performed the duty assumed by him within the time limited in his contract, or within such extension of time as may have been granted by his employer. If he failed to do that, he is not entitled to the commission, even though he made efforts to sell the property, and first called to it the attention of the party who subsequently made the purchase, unless the delay was caused by the negligence, fault or fraud of the owner. [Citations.] ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Neither is there any merit in plaintiff’s contention that the contract was fully performed on the part of plaintiff by defendant’s sale to plaintiff’s customer, and that thereby the bar of the statute of frauds was removed. The law is settled that the procurement of a purchaser is not such performance as will entitle a broker to recover a commission in the absence of a compliance with the requirements of subdivision 5, section 1624' of the Civil Code.””
1 later decision 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.