Development Sales Co. v. McWilliams’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 1994
15 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 JACOBSON, T/A CHECKER CAB ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Julian · Garfinkel v. Schwartzman · Thorpe v. Carte · Leimbach v. Nicholson · Lange v. Board of Education
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he contract terminated according to its own terms and provisions when the zoning classification sought for had not been obtained within 18 months from the date of the contract, and no consent to extend the contract or to further pursue the zoning reclassification was forthcoming from the McWilliamses. The contract was predicated on a contingency which was not fulfilled. Thereafter, the McWilliamses, as sellers, were free to negotiate with whomsoever they may have chosen to negotiate a new contract. We find very broad language in the oft cited case of Hill v. Iglehart, 145 Md. 537 , 125 A. 843 (1924) as to the freedom of activity accorded the owner of real estate to negotiate a new contract upon the failure of a former contract to reach consummation: ‘ * * * [W]here such revocation is untainted by fraud or bad faith, the broker will not be entitled to commission even though the principal after the revocation sells the property to a purchaser with whom the broker had been negotiating, and notwithstanding that the broker’s efforts may have been the direct and procuring cause of such sale. Howard v. Street, 125 Md. [289] 302; Attrill v. Patterson, 58 Md. 226 ; Beale v. Creswell, 3 Md. [196] 201.’ Id. at 550 — [51, 125 A. 843 ].””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.