Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 276 SW2D 611 - Gilbert v. Edwards

Gilbert v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis

1955

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
3
states following
May 2006
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently May 2006 · most notably Greer v. Zurich Insurance Company (1969), Thorpe v. Carte (1969)

4 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

90195519601970198019902000decided

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 Roman v. Lobe · State Ex Rel. Connecticut Fire Insurance v. Cox · 72 Cal. App. 249 - Firpo v. Murphy · Therrien v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co. · Haggerty v. St. Louis Ice Manufacturing & Storage Co.

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

  1. ““It is readily seen from an examination of this section [§ 339.040] and the other provisions of Chapter 339 that it was the evident intention of the Legislature to protect the public against fraud and incompetency in real estate transactions. It has also been held that laws such as we are considering, in addition to giving protection to the public, give protection to the ethical members of the profession under scrutiny, who, having complied with the law in letter and spirit, would, under any other interpretation, be subjected to competition by persons who had violated the law, both in letter and in spirit. This is merely an incidental protection.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Plaintiff was not a party to this contract, but aside from this, it must not be forgotten that this provision in the contract signed by the buyer and the seller was based on the agreement previously made between plaintiff and defendants to split the commission. We have held that such an agreement is illegal and void and, therefore, that portion of the agreement between the buyer and the seller, relied on by plaintiff, attempting to carry out the void agreement must also fail.” [ 276 S.W.2d at 620-621 ]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““No person . . . engaged within this state in the business or acting in the capacity of a real estate broker or real estate salesman shall bring or maintain an action in any court in this state for the recovery of compensation for services rendered in the buying, selling, exchanging, leasing, renting or negotiating a loan upon any real estate without alleging and proving that such person . . . was a licensed real estate broker or salesman at the time when the alleged cause of action arose.””
    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.