James v. Hiller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 20 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The general rule is that a brokerage contract is a contract of employment for personal services and its validity is determined by the law of the state where made unless it appears from the contract that it is to be performed elsewhere, in which event the law of the state where it is to be performed governs irrespective of the location of the property involved. Tillman v. Gibson, 44 Ga.App. 440 , 161 S.E. 630 ; 11 Am.Jur., Conflict of Laws, section 167, page 474; Annotation 159 A.L.R. 266 . It is likewise the rule that brokerage contracts such as in the instant case are unilateral and the place of contracting is where the last act necessary to make it binding occurs, which is the place where the broker produces a purchaser ready, able and willing to buy at the authorized price. Cochran v. Elsworth, 126 Cal.App.2d 429 , 272 P.2d 904 ; Canadian Industrial Alcohol Co. v. Nelson, 8 W.W.Harr. 26 , 38 Del. 26 , 188 A. 39 ; 2 Beale on Conflict of Laws, section 323.2. In this case not only were all the instruments heretofore related actually executed in New Mexico but the purchaser was found therein and there being noth ing to indicate an agreement that it should be performed in Arizona, we conclude that the contract for plaintiff’s services was made in New Mexico and performed therein. Under such circumstances its validity is determined by the law of that state and no Arizona brokerage license is required to enable recovery thereon. McGillivray v. Cronrath, 48 Idaho 97 , 279 P. 613 ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Aritex Land Co. v. Arnold · 60 Wash. 2d 263 - In Re Stoddard's Estate

2. ““The case was tried upon the theory that there was an ambiguity as to whether the instruments created a present or contingent liability. We are referred to no objection by either party to such procedure and evidence was submitted pro and con as to the intention of the parties in this regard. We think that from the instruments and the evidence the court was fully justified in ruling that the obligation was a present existing obligation and not contingent depending upon a condition precedent.” ( 85 Ariz. at 44 , 330 P.2d at 1002 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 10 Ariz. App. 263 - Briskman v. Del Monte Mortgage Company