Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 189 Cal. 596 - Schomig v. Keiser

Schomig v. Keiser’s Empirical Analysis

1922

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
7
states following
March 1998
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 1998 · most notably Hughes v. Board of Architectural Examiners (1998), 28 Cal. 2d 214 - Rattray v. Scudder (1946)

34 state decisions

12019221930194019501960197019801990decided

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.

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

  1. ““It will be seen that this does not authorize the commissioner to revoke any license of either a broker or salesman under the act, unless he is acting for a compensation, and also unless he does the acts complained of at a time when he is negotiating for the sale or purchase of real estate, or is selling- or buying the same or negotiating a loan thereon or offers to lease, or rent, or places for rent, or is collecting rents. from real estate, as a whole or partial .-vocation. (Emphasis ours.) “Any employment by. any person or. another to collect payment on an agreement which has already been negotiated, and is in all respects perfected and the terms agreed upon, does not make the party a real estate broker or real estate salesman, and any misconduct in performing such acts would not warrant the real estate commissioner in revoking the license of such person.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““There is no charge in the complaint, and no evidence to prove the charge if it were in the complaint, that Schomig was employed for a'compensation to do the acts complained of, or that the acts themselves constituted a part of a contract for the sale of real estate. ’ ’”
    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.