Frink v. Gilbert’s Empirical Analysis
1909
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 1994
14 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 Sibbald v. . the Bethlehem Iron Company · Wylie v. . Marine National Bank · Whitcomb v. Bacon · HASTINGS BY HASTINGS v. Hastings · 24 Tex. Civ. App. 627 - Duval v. Moody
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellants had introduced Muehe as a prospective customer. He was ready and willing, but he was not able to buy on the terms proposed. His attitude toward the deal was such that the court below was warranted in finding that the sale would not have been accomplished by appellants or on the terms proposed by them. Mr. Muehe says, Well, the facts were these, that Mr. Ford offered to go my security— made it possible for me to buy the Stetson.’ “Where several brokers have the same property listed for sale, although each has contributed towards the result, the one whose effort was the efficient cause of the sale is entitled to recover the commission.”- (Italics ours.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The cases in this court, of Von Tobel v. Stetson & Post Mill Co., supra [ 32 Wash. 683 , 73 Pac. 788 (1903)], and other cases following it, go no further than to declare the general rule that a principal who has placed property in the hands of an agent cannot thereafter deal with the customer on his own account, or through a broker thereafter employed by him, and defeat the agent’s commission. The case here presented falls within a different rule. The property was listed with two agencies, and the only question open is which one was the efficient procuring cause of the sale.” (Italics ours.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ . . . was the first to procure a customer who met all the requirements of readiness, willingness, and ability. This she accomplished through the generosity of Mr. and Mrs. Ford.””
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.