Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 125 Md. 289 - Howard v. Street

Howard v. Street’s Empirical Analysis

1915

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
5
states following
October 2001
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently October 2001 · most notably Erk v. Glenn L. Martin Co. (1941), Steele v. Seth (2001)

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions

801915192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Keener v. Harrod · Cadigan v. Crabtree · Blake v. Stump · Attrill v. Patterson · Jones v. Adler

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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““We understand the rule to be this (in the absence of proof of usage): That the mere fact of the agent having introduced the purchaser to the seller, or disclosed names by which they came together to treat, will not entitle him to compensation; but if it appears that such introduction or disclosure was the foundation on which the negotiation was begun and conducted, and the sale made, the parties cannot afterwards, by agreement between themselves, withdraw the matter from the agent’s hands, so as to deprive him of his commission.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ ‘It is well settled with the authorities generally, and in this state, that a broker is entitled to his commissions if the sale effected can be referred to Ms instrumentality. * * * If the agent is the procuring cause of the sale made, he will be awarded his commissions.’ * * * The fact that the appellant took the negotiations into his own hands, and changed the terms, could not affect the agent’s right to commissions, provided he was the procuring cause of the sale.””
    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.