Meek v. Hurst’s Empirical Analysis
1909
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 2000 · most notably Cudd v. Wood (1921), 1 Wash. 2d 421 - Puget Mill Co. v. Duecy (1939)
2 federal appellate · 31 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 Grumley v. Webb · Williamson v. Brown · Moore v. Mandlebaum · Benn v. Pritchett
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Unquestionably that fiduciary relation could be brought to an end, and, in that event, Hurst and his sometime agent could deal in relation to the subject-matter at arm’s length and make any new valid contract they saw fit to make, but there is no allegation of that sort in plaintiff’s bill. It does not allege that the relation of principal and agent, once existing, had come to an end; nor does it allege a new contract in that the agent made all disclosures to his principal by giving him the benefit of full information, and that the principal elected to deal with the agent as purchaser under a valid contract then entered into.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“to keep the agent's eye single and clear to the rights and welfare of his principal,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Miller v. Berkoski
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.