Badger v. Finlayson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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

1. “The majority opinion in the case cited holds this is unnecessary. That if the agreement shows a promise to pay a commission upon the sale of real estate the statute is satisfied. Defendant insists that the case of Paul v. Graham , 193 Mich. 447 , supports his contention. If counsel are right in their contention, the holding in Paul v. Graham must give way in so far as it is in conflict with the Cochran Case. Undoubtedly, the controlling thought in the mind of the legislature in adding section 5 to the statute (3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 11981 * ) was to put an end to controversies arising over parol agreements for the sale of real estate. In order to correct this it was provided that the agreement should be in writing. If this is the correct view the legislature had in the matter it may be reasonable to say that when a written agreement to pay a commission for the sale of real estate is shown it complies with the demand of the statute without any further proof as to the details of the sale. This was the controversy in the Cochran Case and was what caused a division of the court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Benedek v. Mechanical Products, Inc.