Hockemeyer v. Pooler’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
8 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Hornblower & Weeks-Hemphill Noyes v. Lazere (1974), Tollefson v. American Family Insurance Co. (1974)
8 district · 39 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 Bauman v. Royal Indemnity Co. · Slater v. Advance Thresher Co. · Hanrahan v. Safway Steel Scaffold Co. · Dispatch Printing Co. v. National Bank of Commerce · 8 N.J. Super. 130 - Mesce v. Automobile Association of New Jersey
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the principle must have held the agent out as having authority, or must have knowingly permitted the agent to act on its behalf; (2) third parties must have [had] actual knowledge that the agent was held out by the principal as having such authority or had been permitted by the principal to act on its behalf; and (3) proof of the agent’s apparent authority must be found in the conduct of the principal, not the agent.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“This court has repeatedly held that to reform a written contract or agreement mere preponderance of the testimony is not sufficient. The facts upon which he who seeks such reformation relies must be established by competent evidence, which is consistent and not contradictory, clear and not equivocal, convincing and not doubtful.”
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.