Pfliger v. Peavey Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 state decisions

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

1. ““An agency relationship must be found by clear and convincing evidence, and the burden of proof when an agency is denied is upon the one who asserts that an agency exists. Farmers Union Oil Co. of Dickinson v. Wood, 301 N.W.2d 129 (N.D.1980). An agency is ostensible ‘when the principal intentionally or by want of ordinary care causes a third person to believe another to be his agent, who really is not employed by him’. § 3-01-03, N.D.C.C. ‘Ostensible authority is such as the principal intentionally or by want of ordinary care causes or allows a third person to believe the agent to possess.’ § 3-02-02, N.D.C.C. There must have been some conduct on the part of the principal reasonably resulting in the belief in the mind of the third party, that an agency existed together with a reliance thereon. Bernard v. Madsen, 52 N.D. 822 , 204 N.W. 196 (1925). ‘Ostensible authority of an agent is based upon the principle of estoppel’. McLane v. F.H. Peavey & Co., 72 N.D. 468 , 8 N.W.2d 308 (1943). ‘A principal is bound by acts of his agent under a merely ostensible authority to those persons only who in good faith and without ordinary negligence have incurred a liability or parted with value upon the faith thereof.’ § 3-03-03, N.D.C.C. ...” “[A] third person dealing with a known agent must bear the burden of determining for himself, by the exercise of reasonable diligence and prudence, the existence or non-existence of the agent’s authority to act in the premises.” 3 Am. Jur.2d, Agency, § ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. Production Credit Ass'n of Fargo

2. ““ ‘[T]he amount is so unreasonable and extreme as to indicate passion or prejudice on the part of the jury; the award is so excessive as to be without support in the evidence; the jury verdict is so excessive as to appear clearly arbitrary, unjust, or such as to shock the judicial conscience, 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages § 366.’ [Case cites omitted.]””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hopkins v. McBane