Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 152 Tex. 322 - Chastain v. Cooper & Reed

Chastain v. Cooper & Reed’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

147
cited by 147 later decisions
1
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 1 district · 117 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 147 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Rourke v. Garza (1975), Baptist Memorial Hospital System v. Sampson (1998)

17 federal appellate · 1 district · 117 state decisions

35019531960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Government Personnel Mutual Life Insurance v. Wear · Great American Casualty Co. v. Eichelberger · Watt's Administrator v. Smith · Cooper Grocery Co. v. Strange · Pierce Fordyce Oil Ass'n v. Woods

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 147 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The doctrine of apparent authority is based on estoppel, and one seeking to charge a principal through the apparent authority of an agent to bind the principal must prove such conduct on the part of the principal as would lead a reasonably prudent person, using diligence and discretion, to suppose that the agent has the authority he purports to exercise.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In the absence of such'inconsistent provisions of two contracts that both cannot stand, thereby working an implied novation, it is held that a second contract will operate as a novation of a first contract only when the parties to both contracts intend and agree that the obligations of the second shall be substituted for and operate as a discharge of the obligations of the first.... In keeping with this general rule it is held that to effect a novation by the substitution of one debtor for another thereby releasing the first, there must be agreement to that effect between all three parties, and a presumption of an intention to release the first debtor will not arise from the mere taking of the second.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ * * * a second contract will operate as a novation of a first contract only when the parties to both contracts intend and agree that the obligations of the second shall be substituted for and operate as a discharge of the obligations of the first. * * * In keeping with this general rule it is held that to effect a novation by the substitution of one debtor for another thereby releasing the first, there must be agreement to that effect between all three parties, and a presumption of an intention to release the first debtor will not arise from the mere taking of the second.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.