Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 5 Wash. 2d 134 - Higgins v. Daniel

5 Wash. 2d 134 - Higgins v. Daniel’s Empirical Analysis

1940

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
November 2004
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 2004

7 state decisions

301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 German-American State Bank v. Soap Lake Salts Remedy Co. · Centralia State Bank v. Hackett · 223 Mo. App. 115 - Ely-Walker Dry Goods Co. v. Karnes · Northern Bank & Trust Co. v. Slater

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

  1. “Generally speaking, a principal is chargeable with notice of facts which are within the knowledge of his agent, acquired within the scope of the agent's authority. A well recognized exception to this rule is that, where an agent acquires information which it would be to his advantage to conceal from his principal, it is assumed that he did not impart such knowledge to his principal, and accordingly knowledge would not be imputed to the principal. This exception, however, is qualified by the rule that, if the agent is the sole representative of the principal, or the only person or means by which the principal acts, then the knowledge of the agent will be imputed to the principal, and the general rule applies, and not the exception thereto. 4 Zollman, Banks and Banking, 352, §§ 2322-3-4; 9 C. J. S. 431, § 203 et seq.; Mays v. First State Bank, 247 S. W. (Tex. Com. App.) 845.”
    2 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.