Peters v. Riley’s Empirical Analysis
1914
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 2010
7 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 Reynolds v. Tompkins · State v. Kellison · Parker v. National Mutual Building & Loan Ass'n · Kuykendall v. Fisher · Truslow v. Parkersburg Bridge & Terminal Railroad
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 evidence does not establish or tend to prove any agency other than that of mere brokerage. The plaintiff was not authorized by the defendant to make a contract of sale for him. All the essential elements of the contract remained in the sole and exclusive control of the defendant. The plaintiff was a mere intermediary, having no power or authority to do more than find a purchaser and bring the parties together to formulate their own contract and fix its terms and conditions. In such a case, the acceptance of compensation from both parties is unobjectionable. Runnion v. Morrison, 71 W.Va. 254 ( 76 S.E. 457 ). The defendant admits the plaintiff came to him as the representative of prospective buyers, the purchaser knew he professed to represent the vendor and neither of them intrusted to him the determination of the price or terms of the sale. It can hardly be said, therefore, that he was even a broker in the strict sense of the term. He was really only a sort of middleman between the contracting parties. Hence, the principle declared in Truslow v. Parkersburg Bridge & Terminal Co., 61 W.Va. 628 ( 57 S.E. 51 ), and Guthrie v. [Huntington] Chair Company, 71 W.Va. 383 ( 76 S.E. 795 ), is not applicable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Riley thinks he has eight hundred acres and is figuring on so much money I will not let him know how much he has as it will be better until after you make the deal if you do so”
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.