Cates v. Daniels’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 2005
6 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 Scherling v. Kilgore · Bridges v. Alaska Housing Authority · TERRY AND COMPANY v. Hensen · Mountain Fuel Supply Co. v. Central Engineering & Equipment Company · 225 F. Supp. 907 - Amerada Petroleum Corporation v. Rio Oil Co.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Plaintiff Belva S. Daniels did not execute the contract for the purchase of Lot 30 nor did she give her husband written authority to execute said purchase agreement. The trial court correctly found that Belva S. Daniels did not ratify or adopt the purchase agreement for the purchase of Lot 30. * * * * * * “The trial court in II15 of the judgment found that Belva S. Daniels did not constitute her husband, Charles E. Daniels, as her agent to purchase Lot 30. She was not a party to the contract to purchase Lot 30 and did not give her husband written authority to sign the contract for her. In Wallis v. Bosler, [ 70 Wyo. 129 , 246 P.2d 771 (1952)], this court made it clear that for a person to be liable on a contract, he must be a party to the contract or must have given his agent written authority to sign the agreement on his behalf.” Id., at 867.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * Demand may be made within ten days after service of the amended or supplemental pleading for new issues raised by that pleading but the amendment does not revive a right, previously waived, to demand jury trial on the issues already framed by .the original pleadings. Nor does the late demand create a right to jury trial on issues raised by the amended or supplemental pleadings if those issues were fairly raised by the original pleadings.” ’ ” Cates v. Daniels, Wyo., 628 P.2d 862, 865 (1981), quoting from Scherling v. Kilgore, Wyo., 599 P.2d 1352, 1356 (1979).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If any person receives any money or the equivalent thereof as a fee, commission, compensation or profit by or in consequence of a violation of any provision of [the Wyoming Real Estate License Act], he shall ... be liable to a penalty of not less than the amount of the sum of money so received and not more than three (3) times the sum so received as may be determined by the court, which penalty may be recovered in a court of competent jurisdiction by any person aggrieved.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.