Reed v. Kelly’s Empirical Analysis
177 F.2d 473 · 1949
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently January 2006
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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 Griffin v. McCoach · Scudder v. Union National Bank · The Kensington · Bothwell v. Buckbee · Mount Ida School for Girls v. Rood
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is true * * * that the lex loei governs as to the validity of contracts, but this rule is subordinate to and is qualified by the doctrine that neither by comity nor by the will of the contracting parties can the public policy of a State be set at naught. The Kensington, 183 U. S. 263, 269 , 22 S. Ct. 102 , 46 L. Ed. 190 . A State may refuse to enforce a contract which provides for doing within it an act prohibited by its laws. Bothwell v. Buckbee Means Co., 275 U. S. 274, 278 , 48 S. Ct. 124 . 72 L. Ed. 277 . And in an action to enforce a remedy, the law of the forum applies and not the law of the place of the making or performance of the contract. Scudder v. Union National Bank, 91 U. S. 406, 413 , 23 L. Ed. 245 . That is to say, a citizen of one State cannot use the courts of a sister State to prosecute his cause of action in a manner contrary to the laws of the forum * * [ 177 F. 2d 475 ]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““136.11 Limitation on actions for commissions. No person engaged in the business or acting in the capacity of a real estate broker or salesman within this state shall bring or maintain an action in the courts of this state for the collection of a commission or compensation for the performance of any act mentioned in this chapter without alleging and proving that he was a duly licensed broker or salesman at the time the alleged cause of action arose.” “136.01 Definitions. * * * “(2) ‘Real estate broker’ means any person not excluded by sub. (6), who: * * * * * * “(d) For another and for commission, money or other thing of value, sells, exchanges, buys or rents, or offers or attempts to negotiate a sale, exchange, purchase or rental of any business, its good will, inventory, fixtures or an interest therein; or “(e) Is engaged wholly or in part in the business of selling business opportunities or good will of an existing business or is engaged wholly or in part in the business of buying and selling, exchanging or renting of any business, its good will, inventory, fixtures or an interest therein.””
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.