Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 152 Tex. 92 - Breeding v. Anderson

Breeding v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
2
states following
October 1985
most recently cited

36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently October 1985 · most notably Henry S. Miller Co. v. Treo Enterprises (1979), Thomas v. Jarvis (1974)

36 state decisions

1701953196019701980decided

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 Kadane v. Clark · Gregory v. Roedenbeck · Herren v. Hollingsworth · Cosner v. Hancock · Sibley v. Coffield

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

  1. ““Finally, we agree with appellant Fry that the record in this case reveals that Shaw’s role in the transaction was that of a broker, dealer or commission agent and since he was not licensed as a broker, dealer or agent, as required by the Texas Securities Act, he cannot recover a commission for his services. Article 581-34 of the Texas Securities Act, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. plainly and expressly provides that no person shall bring or maintain any action in the courts of this state for collection of a commission or compensation for services rendered in the sale or purchase of securities without alleging and proving that such person was duly licensed under the provisions of the law. Under the record as here presented Shaw’s only cause of action would be for his compensation for services rendered by him and arranging the meeting between Fry and Fraser which resulted in the purchase of the securities by Fry. Pursuant to the plain letter of the statute Shaw cannot recover a commission or compensation since he admittedly was not licensed.””
    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.