Rhode v. Gallat’s Empirical Analysis
1915
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably 52 Cal. App. 322 - Dillingham v. Dahlgren (1921), Camichos v. Diana Stores Corporation (1946)
4 federal appellate · 34 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 Swift v. Erwin · Halsey v. Morteiro · Lindley v. Keim · Fordyce Lumber Co. v. Wallace · Hamilton v. Harvey
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A real estate agent or broker in whose hands an owner places lands for sale, or who is employed to sell lands, does not thereby acquire authority to bind his principal by signing an agreement of sale of such lands. The inference that such real estate agent or broker has been endowed by his principal with authority to bind him in a written agreement of sale cannot be drawn from circumstances entirely consistent with his employment as a mere agent and broker, nor without other circumstances clearly indicating the grant of such greater authority.”
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.