Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 223 Minn. 285 - Hare v. Bauer

Hare v. Bauer’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
July 1982
most recently cited

2 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 1982

2 district · 8 state decisions

3019471950196019701980decided

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 Francis v. Baker · McDonald v. Smith · Meyer v. Keating Land & Mortgage Co. · Goss v. Stevens · Martinson v. Hensler

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

  1. ““* * * This rule, however, is subject to limitations. The agent must have dealt fairly with his principal, and if he presents a person known to be incapable of performance and fails to disclose this or other pertinent facts to his principal, he is guilty of fraud and bad faith and forfeits his right to compensation. Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 83 , 47 N. W. 452 ; Meyer v. Keating L. & M. Co. 126 Minn. 409 , 148 N. W. 452 ; Lowrie v. Christenson, 165 Minn. 181 , 206 N. W. 390 ; Sinna v. Sperry Realty & Inv. Co. 181 Minn. 183 , 232 N. W. 5 . When such circumstances are present, the principal may show the prospective purchaser’s lack of financial worth; his inability or failure to perform the contract; and, where a contract has been executed prior to discovery of such information, that it would not have been executed had the true facts been known and was cancelled by consent of the parties thereto immediately upon discovery thereof. No liability for the agent’s commission arises when such facts are established. Martinson v. Hensler, 132 Minn. 437 , 157 N. W. 714, 991 ; Meyer v. Keating L. & M. Co. supra.””
    2 later decisions 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.