Barrett v. Ballard’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently May 2022
21 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 124 Cal. App. 2d 71 - Hensler v. City of Los Angeles · State Board of Equalization v. Cole · 33 Colo. App. 396 - Hildyard v. Western Fasteners, Inc. · Smith v. Zepp · Diehl & Associates, Inc. v. Houtchens
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The law in this state is well settled. The broker need not do everything to complete the sale but only be responsible for bringing the parties together. In Shober v. Dean (1909), 39 Mont. 255 , 102 P. 323 , this Court set the standard which should judge broker causation: “ ‘. . .It appears to us that there can be but one answer: It was intended that, if the efforts of Shober set in motion a chain of events which finally culminated in a sale of the property, then he should recover the maximum fee;.. .’ ” 622 P.2d at 186 . (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Adams v. Cheney““A real estate broker earns his commission when he procures a buyer who is ready, willing and able to purchase real property on such terms as the sellers may agree. The ultimate sale terms need not be what the broker’s contract contains. A broker is not required to do everything to complete the sale, but is only responsible for bringing the parties together.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Adams v. Cheney“Where an agent contracts to furnish a purchaser for land at a stipulated price and such agent does furnish a purchaser whom the owner accepts, and in the negotiations of the contract the owner agrees upon and accepts a different price from that at which the agent was instructed to sell, still such agent would be entitled to his compensation...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lane v. Smith
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.