Eads v. Borman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Classically, an agency relationship “ ‘results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act.’ ” Vaughn v. First Transit, Inc., 346 Or. 128, 135 , 206 P.3d 181 (2009) (emphasis in Vaughn omitted) (quoting Hampton Tree Farms, Inc. v. Jewett, 320 Or. 599, 617 , 892 P.2d 683 (1995)). The agency relationship can arise either from actual consent (express or implied) or from the appearance of such consent. See generally Taylor v. Ramsay-Gerd-ing Construction Co., 345 Or. 403, 410 , 196 P.3d 532 (2008) (so discussing). In either circumstance, the principal is bound by or otherwise responsible for the actual or apparent agent’s acts only if the acts are within the scope of what the agent is actually or apparently authorized to do. Id.; see also Beeson v. Hegstad, 199 Or. 325, 330 , 261 P.2d 381 (1953) (one cannot hold principal liable for an act that does not fall within the scope of agent’s real or apparent authority).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bates v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.

2. “[t]he fact that the patient relies on the reputation of the hospital itself as a care provider, and does not make an independent selection as to which physicians the patient will obtain care from, provides the factual basis for the reliance needed for the apparent authority analysis”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cefaratti v. Aranow

3. “Apparent authority is the power held by an agent or other actor to affect a principal's legal relations with third parties when a third party reasonably believes the actor has authority to act on behalf of the principal and that belief is traceable to the principal's manifestations.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cefaratti v. Aranow