Krause v. Holand’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 2006
12 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 Kuester v. Rowlands · Heins v. Thompson & Flieth Lumber Co. · Lauer v. Bandow · Wilcox v. Coumbe · Estate of Shinoe v. Shinoe
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . parol authority may create an agency relationship which will permit the agent to bind the principal by a written contract to sell real estate, but such parol authority must be clear and express. In Lauer v. Bandow (1878), 43 Wis. 556, 563 , involving an analogous situation, Mr. Chief Justice Ryan stated: ‘Parol agency to charge a principal’s realty ought to be express, and clearly established.’ To the same effect see Challoner v. Bouck (1883), 56 Wis. 652 , 14 N. W. 810 .” Krause v. Holand (1967), 33 Wis. 2d 211, 215, 216 , 147 N. W. 2d 333 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When one has clearly established the terms of his contract to buy real estate, he is entitled to specific performance which is not to be denied by judicial arbitrariness.”
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.