72 Cal. App. 2d 138 - Walter v. Libby’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Where, as here, the agent or broker is given an exclusive right to sell, as distinguished merely from a sole or exclusive agency (such as that which engaged the attention of the court in Dreyfus v. Richardson, 20 Cal.App. 800 [ 130 P. 161 ], strongly relied upon by appellant), he is entitled to be compensated when a sale is made by the principal, and it is immaterial that he was not the procuring cause thereof. (Fleming v. Dolfin, 214 Cal. 269, 271 [ 4 P.2d 776 , 78 A.L.R. 585 ]; Gregory v. Bonney, 135 Cal. 589 [67 P. 1038]; Kimmell v. Skelly, 130 Cal. 555 [ 62 P. 1067 ]; Justy v. Erro, 16 Cal.App. 519 [ 117 P. 575 ]; 9 C.J., p. 622, § 101, 12 C.J.S., pp. 219-221, § 94.)””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 101 Cal. App. 2d 512 - E. A. Strout Western Realty Agency v. Gregoire

2. ““Appellant’s misrepresentation as to his present intention, and his suppression of the vital fact that he was about to dispose of the ranch through his own efforts were obviously calculated to and did induce respondent to give his consent to the revocation of the agency and to surrender the instruments evidencing it. Appellant could not take advantage of respondent’s consent thus procured.” 164 P.2d at 24 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schoenick v. Smalley