Fuchs v. Leahy’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently May 2007
4 federal appellate · 13 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 First National Bank v. Town of New Milford · 43 Tex. Civ. App. 134 - Blair v. Baird · N. B. Brown & Co. v. St. John Trust Co. · Scanlan v. Grimmer · Smith v. Farrell
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Where two or more principals employ the same agent, whether as a means of dealing with one another or to protect their common interests, one cannot charge the other not actually at fault with the misconduct of the common agent. The latter owes no more duty to one than to the other; each of the principals is under an equal duty to supervise .the agent and to protect his own interest, and there is no reason why the misconduct of the agent should be imputed to one principal rather than to the other. ’ 2 Mechem on Agency (2d ed.) Sec. 2140. See, also, Austin v. Rupe, (Tex. Civ. App.) 141 S. W. 547 ; Ringer v. Wilkin, 32 Idaho, 330 [ 183 Pac. 986, 989 ]; Walker, Real Estate Agency (2d ed.) 300; Brown & Co. v. St. John Trust Co., 71 Kan. 134 [ 80 Pac. 37 ] ; Blair v. Baird, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 134 [ 94 S. W. 116 ]; Smith v. Farrell, 66 Mo. App. 8 ; First Nat. Bank of New Milford v. Town of New Milford, 36 Conn. 93 .””
3 later decisions 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.