Sylvester v. Beck’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably 2002 Pa. Super. 347 - Etoll, Inc. v. Elias/Savion Advertising, Inc. (2002), 376 Pa. Super. 241 - SHV Coal, Inc. v. Continental Grain Co. (1988)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 31 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 Kribbs v. JACKSON · Shannon v. Baltz · Delvitto v. Schiavo · Johnson Ex Rel. McCarter v. Nippert · Kramer v. Winslow
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There can be no doubt that an agent owes a duty of loyalty to his principal and in all matters, affecting the subject of his agency, he must act with the utmost good faith in the furtherance and advancement of the interests of his principal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The fact that the defendant entered into a contract to resell the property twenty-seven days after he had contracted to purchase it and did not disclose this particular fact to the plaintiffs until after final settlement does not, in itself, entitle the plaintiffs to damages. The agency having ended when the plaintiffs agreed to sell, the agent was under no obligation to furnish his former principal with the details of events that took place subsequent to the termination of their relationship of principal and agent. U “This case must be judged upon the facts known to the defendant as of the time he agreed to purchase and the plaintiffs agreed to sell. In order to sustain the cause of action asserted, plaintiffs were obliged to prove that as of that time the defendant failed to disclose fully all facts within his knowledge. The proof does not sustain such a finding. Hence, the allegation of concealment and unfair dealing is not made out.””
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.