31 Ill. App. 3d 643 - Elmore v. Blume’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably 84 Ill. App. 3d 1132 - Schoenberger v. Chicago Transit Authority (1980), Rankow v. First Chicago Corp. (1989)
3 federal appellate · 32 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 37 Ill. 2d 180 - People Ex Rel. General Motors Corp. v. Bua · 20 Ill. 2d 512 - City of Evanston v. Piotrowicz · 53 Ill. 2d 508 - Reese v. Melahn · 29 Ill. App. 3d 479 - Garcia v. Hynes & Howes Real Estate, Inc. · Ditis v. Ahlvin Construction 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An agent’s authority may be presumed from silence of the alleged principal when he knowingly allows another to act for him as his agent, and the agent’s scope of authority may be determined by what persons of reasonable prudence, ordinarily familiar with business practices, dealing with the agent, might rightfully believe him to have on the basis of the principal’s conduct. (Lauhoff v. Automobile Ins. Co., 56 F.Supp. 493 (E.D. Ill. 1944). See also Alterman v. Lydick, 241 F.2d 50 (7th Cir. 1957).) Where the principal * places an agent 9 9 9 in a situation where he may be presumed to have authority to act for her, the principal is estopped as against a third person from denying the agent’s apparent authority. Faber-Musser Co. v. Dee Clay Manufacturing Co., 291 Ill. 240 , 126 N.E. 186 (1920).” Elmore v. Blume (1975), 31 Ill. App. 3d 643, 647 , 334 N.E.2d 431 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under the theory of express warranty, an actionable claim must be based on an affirmation of fact or a promise which is not a statement representing merely the seller’s opinion or commendation, and which is false. (Citation omitted).”
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.