Greep v. Bruns’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 6 district · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Branding Iron Motel, Inc. v. Sandlian Equity, Inc. (1986), Ford v. Guarantee Abstract & Title Co. (1976)
8 federal appellate · 6 district · 60 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 Kipp v. Goffe · Picou v. Kansas City Public Service Co. · City of Wichita v. Boles · Aultman Thrashing & Engine Co. v. Knoll · Lewis v. Montgomery Ward & 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may be, and frequently is, implied from the words and conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the particular case.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“one whom the principal has intentionally or by want of ordinary care induced third persons to believe to be his agent, although no authority has been conferred upon him, either expressly or by implication.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘The liability of the principal for the acts and contracts of his agent is not limited to such acts and contracts of the agent as are expressly authorized, necessarily implied from express authority, or otherwise actually conferred by implication from the acts and conduct of the principal. All such acts and contracts of the agent as are within the apparent scope of the authority conferred on him, although no actual authority to do such acts or to make such contracts has been conferred, are also binding upon the principal. Apparent authority, or ostensible authority, as it is also called, is that which, though not actually granted, the principal knowingly permits the agent to exercise, or which he holds him out as possessing. Accordingly, as defined by the American Law Institute, an apparent agent is one who, with or without authority, reasonably appears to third persons to be authorized to act as the agent of another.’ ””
2 later decisions 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.