Elfriede Eitel v. W. Horace Schmidlapp’s Empirical Analysis
459 F.2d 609 · 1972
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 2004
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. · Colorado Coal & Iron Co. v. United States · Curtis, Collins & Holbrook Co. v. United States · Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Hammond Elevator Company · Wright-Blodgett Company v. United States
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“strictly limits the authority of an agent to the letter of his instructions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The principal cannot claim the fruits of the agent’s acts and still repudiate what the agent knew.... Defendant, by his own admissions, could not have been less interested in [the details of the transaction]. He was interested only in obtaining the profit ... and he was perfectly content to leave the details as to how he obtained it to [his agent].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Ordinarily, the knowledge of an agent is imputed to his principal.”
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.