Harris v. McPherson’s Empirical Analysis
1922
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently December 1991 · most notably Louis Schlesinger Co. v. Rice (1950), Fox v. Johnson & Wimsatt, Inc. (1942)
7 federal appellate · 39 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Cadigan v. Crabtree · Ewart Lumber Co. v. American Cement Plaster Co. · Wanstrath Real Estate Co. v. Wenz · Murphy v. Sawyer & Warford · Hayes v. Clark
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Ordinarily in [exclusive brokerage] contracts the exclusive sale is given to the broker for a definite time. Where the duration of the contract is not specified, what is the life of the contract? It is to be observed that this contract is not one of a general agency employment, as that of a salesman; it is a contract to procure a purchaser for one specific piece of property, and is confined to the accomplishment of a particular transaction. The rule of law, that where there is a general employment of a servant with no provision as to the duration of the employment, the employment is at will and may be terminated by either party at any time without violating a contract, is not pertinent to an employment for the accomplishment of one particular transaction. In such an employment, . . . the law implies its continuance fora... reasonable time.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A contract employing a broker as an exclusive agent, is an agreement on the part of the owner that during the life of the contract he will not sell the property to a purchaser procured through another agent. This does not preclude the owner from selling to a purchaser of his procuring.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Goodchild v. Emigh
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.