Handley v. Shaffer’s Empirical Analysis
1912
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 139 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 144 later decisions — most recently June 1989 · most notably Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Wilkes (1936), 57 Cal. App. 1 - Sessions v. Pacific Improvement Co. (1922)
3 federal appellate · 139 state decisions — followed in 14 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 Sibbald v. . the Bethlehem Iron Company · Lloyd v. . Matthews · Stewart v. Mather · Montgomery & Eufaula Railway Co. v. Kolb · Sayre v. Wilson & Ingram
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 144 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An agent employed to sell ordinarily owes to his principal the duty of service, with the exercise of such skill and industry as may be requisite to accomplish the object of his employment, and with full fidelity to the just interest of his employer. Henderson v. Vincent, 84 Ala. 99 , 4 South. 180 ; Green v. South. States Lumber Co., 141 Ala. 680 , 37 South. 670 ; McGar v. Adams, 65 Ala. 106 , 45 L. R. A. 42, note. “He is entitled to his commissions when he produces to his principal a person who is able, ready and willing to buy on the terms prescribed by such principal within the period allowed, or, if the time is not limited, before the revocation of his agency. This assumes that the broker’s negotiations have produced a result so complete that nothing remains to be done but acceptance of the purchaser by his principal. Wiggins v. Wilson, 55 Fla. 346 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Nor is it ordinarily material to the question of the broker’s right to compensation that his vendor-principal did not know that the purchaser who he has accepted was procured by the broker. 19 Cyc. 264; 4 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 980; notes to Quist v. Goodfellow (Minn.) 9 Ann. Cas. 431, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 153; Lloyd v. Matthews, 51 N. Y. 124 . Special circumstances may, however, impose upon the broker the duty of informing his principal that a person with whom the latter is negotiating is a customer sent by the broker, if such information is obviously necessary to enable his principal to protect himself against deception, imposition, and loss.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The complaint avers a joint employment of the plaintiff by defendants Handley and Johnson. In such a ease, as repeatedly held by this court, section 2504 of the Code (now section 5720, Code 1923) notwithstanding, proof of employment by only one of them, hot participated in by the other, does not authorize a recovery against either of them. The probatum does not support the allegatum, and the variance is fatal to any right of recovery.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Haines v. Cunha
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.