Fink v. Williamson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 state decisions

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

1. ““The owner of property, listing it for sale with different brokers, cannot reduce the selling price to one and not the other provided the brokers are showing the property to the same customer. The seller 'must remain neutral to rival brokers. * * * It will be seen from the foregoing authorities that where an owner 'employs different brokers he must not only be neutral as between the brokers, but if a purchaser is introduced to him by one broker, and the negotiations through that broker have not fallen through, '.the owner may not, with the. knowledge .of the facts, sell to such purchaser' through another agent to the exclusion' óf the first agent. If the owner completes the deal through another agent under these circumstances, the owner: is liable to the first agent.” Fink v. Williamson, 62 Ariz. at 385, 386 , 158 P.2d at 162 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hurley v. Kallof

2. ““ ‘An agent employed to sell real estate, who first brings it to the notice of the person who ultimately becomes the purchaser, is entitled to his commissions on the sale, although the latter is effected by the owner of the property, nor can the owner evade his liability to pay the agent his commissions by selling for a sum less than,the price given the agent, when the reduction is made of the owner’s own accord.’ ” Fink v. Williamson, 62 Ariz. 379 , 158 P.2d 159 (1945), quoting from Fornara v. Wolpe, 26 Ariz. 383 , 226 P. 203 (1924).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bass Investment Co. v. Banner Realty, Inc.

3. ““ * * * While the pleading and proof are that appellee was given certain terms upon which the property would be leased, yet, if he brought it to the notice of the-person who afterwards purchased it, the-fact that the owners themselves consummated the deal and voluntarily took a. less sum than that given appellee would not deprive the latter of his right to-the commission. * * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bass Investment Co. v. Banner Realty, Inc.