Dew v. Hunter’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1973
8 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 Grace Realty Co. v. Peytavin Planting Co. · Hoadley v. Savings Bank · Sollie v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. · White v. Havard · Kaufman Agency v. Viccellio
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.
““ ‘The rule is tersely given in 12 C.j.S. (Brokers) § 93, p. 215, as follows : “Provided he is the procuring cause of the transaction, a broker is entitled to a commission on a transaction with a customer procured by him, even though the final negotiations are conducted or the transaction is closed by the principal personally.” ‘“The Supreme Court of this state has, in several cases, recognized the rule embodied in the quotations, supra, and enforced it in proper cases. In Grace Realty Company v. Peytavin Planting Company, 156 La. 93 -96, 97, 100 So. 62, 63 , 43 A.L.R. 1096 , dissertating upon facts to which said rule was applicable, said: “ ‘ “It is well settled that where a broker, who is employed to sell property at a given price, and for an ■agreed commission, has opened negotiations with a purchaser, and the principal, without terminating the agency or negotiations so commenced, takes it into his own hands, and concludes a sale for a less sum than the price fixed, the broker is entitled', at least, to a ratable proportion of the agreed commission. “ ‘ “This rule is supported by numerous authorities, upon the ground that the broker is, in such a case, really the moving cause of the sale, as he has brought the parties together and thereby procured a purchaser and performed his contract which was contingent upon his success. Hoadley v. Savings Bank of Danbury, 71 Conn. 599 , 42 A. 667 , 44 L.R.A. (321) 350, 351, note, citing numerous authorities.” “ ‘Many cases from other s”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wright v. Monsour
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.