Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 50 INDAPP 38 - Doney v. Laughlin

Doney v. Laughlin’s Empirical Analysis

1911

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
7
states following
February 1993
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 47 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently February 1993 · most notably Wagner v. United States (1978), Baldwin v. Burton (1993)

3 federal appellate · 47 state decisions

170191119201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Ewell v. Daggs · Ransdel v. Moore · Zimmerman v. Zehendner · State v. Richmond · Howard v. Adkins

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

  1. ““The object of the legislature in enacting the statute requiring real estate commission contracts to be in writing was in general, the same as that which led to the enactment of our statute of frauds, viz., to avoid frauds and perjuries, and the later is especially for the protection of those selling real estate through agents, to avoid conflict as to who, if any one, is entitled to the commission, and definitely to fix the amount to be paid. In enacting the statute, the legislature plainly provides that a contract for a real estate commission is invalid, or incapable of legal enforcement, unless in writing signed by the person obligated or his authorized agent.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““It has also been held that: Tf it concerns the pub-lie good, it is generally to be considered void; but if it is prohibited for the purpose of securing the private rights of the parties interested, it is only voidable. Where the public interest is not concerned, it is sufficient to allow the party who may be prejudiced by an unlawful sale or contract to avoid it.' Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Winne, 20 Mont. 20 [ 49 Pac. 446 ]. “See, also, Fletcher v. Stone, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 250; Veeder v. Trust Co., 61 Neb. 892 [ 6 N. W. 982 ]; Van Schaack v. Robbins, 36 Iowa, 201 ; Denny v. McCown, 34 Or. 47 [ 54 Pac. 952 ].””
    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.