Jory v. Bennight’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
4 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 2011
4 district · 10 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 Bangor Punta Operations, Inc. v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad · 217 Cal. App. 2d 77 - Chas. L. Harney, Inc. v. State of California · 107 So. 2d 496 - Adams v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York · Frank McCleary Cattle Company v. Sewell · North Arlington Medical Building Inc. v. Sanchez Construction Co.
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Use of the corporate structure to evade legal obligations and defeat public policy is not favored. [citations omitted] Moreover, it seems clear our legislature, in permitting the business of real estate brokerage to operate in corporate form, had no intent to relieve brokers of professional responsibility. Instead, the legislature has provided that a broker’s license will be issued, not alone to a corporation as such, but only to a qualified officer on behalf of the corporation, [citation omitted] We are, therefore, concerned with the obligations and liability of a corporate officer who is licensed to carry out the corporation’s duties as a broker. In urging that Edward Jory owed no duty to Bennight we think appellants misconstrue Jory’s status. He remained a real estate broker, although licensed to serve clients on behalf of a corporation. Like any broker, Jory had fiduciary duties to those he had undertaken to serve in a professional capacity, including a duty “to act in the utmost good faith,” and “to disclose to his principal facts within or which may come to his knowledge which might influence the principal in the transaction.” [citation omitted] Therefore if Jory, through his own professional misconduct or neglect, breached fiduciary obligations owed to Bennight, he is personally responsible for consequent harm, and operating in the corporate form does not insulate him from such liability, [citation omitted]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“He remained a real estate broker, although licensed to serve clients on behalf of a corporation. Like any broker, Jory had fiduciary duties to those he had undertaken to serve in a professional capacity.... Therefore if Jory, through his own professional misconduct or neglect, breached fiduciary obligations owed to Bennight, he is personally responsible for consequent harm, and operating in the corporate form does not insulate him from such liability.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[H]is fiduciary duties . . . include obligations of the utmost good faith, diligence, loyalty, fair dealing, and disclosure of material facts.”
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.