Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 205 KY 142 - Bloom v. Young

Bloom v. Young’s Empirical Analysis

1924

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
2
states following
March 1960
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Dung v. . Parker · Baltzen v. . Nicolay · Oliver v. Morgan

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

  1. ““The principle of law embodied in the quotation above (the exception to the rule found in 3 C.J.S., Agency, §212) seems to us to be conclusive of the question now before us. The contract sued on herein, for the nonperformance of which appellant seeks to recover damages, is such as is required by subsection 6 of section 470, Carroll’s ICy. Statutes 1922, (Statute of Frauds) to be in writing to be binding. It was a contract for the sale of real estate. It was not in writing. If the appellees (defendants) had been the agents of the Bottomlees, and had had authority from them to sell the house and lot to ax>pellant, (plaintiff) and had orally contracted with appellant to do so, the owners of the property would not have been bound, nor would appellees as agents have been bound, because under our statute of frauds such contracts to be binding must be in writing and be signed by the parties.” (Parentheses ours.) 265 S.W. 501 , l.c. 502.”
    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.