Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 528 SW2D 80 - Cooper v. Wildman

Cooper v. Wildman’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
July 1997
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 1997

8 state decisions

50197519801990decided

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 Seideneck v. Cal Bayreuther Associates · Goodwin v. Gunter · Tenneco Oil Company v. Padre Drilling Company · Southland Life Ins. Co. v. Norton · Moore v. Jenkins

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

  1. ““A duly licensed real estate broker, who is authorized to sell real property under a valid listing agreement, is entitled to the commission specified in the agreement when he produces a purchaser who is ready, willing and financially able to purchase the property at the cash price that the owner authorized the property to be offered for sale. This is but a rule of fairness and right. The owner cannot defeat the broker’s right to the commission by refusing to consummate the sale. To allow the owner to refuse to complete the sale after a valid listing agreement has been signed by both the owner and the broker and a purchaser has been found by the broker who can and will pay the cash purchase price set out in the listing agreement, and yet deny to the broker the right to the commission specified in the agreement, is ‘a proposition not to be countenanced’. Goodwin v. Gunter, 109 Tex. 56 , 185 S.W. 295, 296 [ 195 S.W. 848 ] (Tex.Sup.1916); Stolaroff v. Campbell, 18 S.W.2d 838 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1929, no writ).””
    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.