Proctor v. Holden

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that, in Maryland, “the party alleging the agency has the burden of proving its existence and its nature and extent”
• finding that an alleged “mutually understood inference” was not sufficient to create an agency relationship with a realtor and prospective buyer in the absence of any written or oral agreements, as “good salesmanship and fondness do not an agency make.”
• \The broker cannot act for both the seller and buyer in the same transaction because of the potential conflict of interest\
• even assuming testimony about resale price of disputed home was irrelevant, error in admitting testimony was harmless in light of trial judge’s corrective instructions
• “The broker cannot act for both the seller and buyer in the same transaction because of the potential conflict of interest”
• “We conclude from our review of the record that the Holdens failed to produce any evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that an agency relationship had been created.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).