521 So. 2d 717 - Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 2003
1 federal appellate · 5 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 Yazoo County Industrial Development Corp. Et Al. v. Suthoff Et Al. · Missouri v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas · 285 So. 2d 536 - Broadway v. All-Star Insurance Corporation · Buckley v. Woodlawn Development Corporation · Case v. Bank
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Its opinion [Kerner ] is a lavish exposition of apparent authority doctrine and jurisprudence, omitting any mention of articles 2996 and 2997 [(see supra n. 10)]. On closer examination, however, certain undeveloped facts support the result, if not the stated rationale, in Kerner. The homestead’s directors had hired the real estate agent and apparently followed his progress for over a year. Furthermore, the court said, “The plaintiff’s own evidence makes it doubtful whether the Board of Directors did not pass a resolution authorizing the president to sign ...” 23 So.2d at 201. These remarks suggest that there really was full consent and a written mandate. There was, full knowledge in that the homestead attorney who examined the title and prepared the sales documents was a member of the board of directors. The court also mentioned that the homestead failed to attack the fraudulent sale for over a year, in spite of regular internal and State audits which should have revealed the scheme, thus indicating a sort of ratification. Finally, there was an otherwise very strong case of apparent authority.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““there is also support in the jurisprudence for the proposition that a ratification of a sales agreement on immovable property executed by an agent must likewise be in writing [ (emphasis added) ]. Krupp v. Nelson, 50 So.2d 464 (La.App. 4th Cir.1951); Daigle & Assoc., Inc. v. Coleman, 385 So.2d 349 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980), affirmed on other grounds, 396 So.2d 1270 (La.1981); Fejta v. GAF Companies, Inc., 800 F.2d 1395 (5th Cir.1986). In the absence of an express and written mandate to sell immovable property on behalf of the corporation, or a ratification by the corporation, Gentry could not be bound by the contract....””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Thus the power must be express for the following purposes: To sell or to buy.... and in general where things to be done are not merely acts of administration, or such as facilitate such acts... Article 3010 states:”
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.