Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 68 Nev. 410 - Ellis v. Nelson

Ellis v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
4
states following
August 2014
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 8 district · 26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Great American Insurance v. General Builders, Inc. (1997), Topaz Mutual Co. v. Marsh (1992)

5 federal appellate · 8 district · 26 state decisions

1101951196019701980199020002010decided

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 Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. Thornburgh · Commercial Credit Co. v. Barney Motor Co. · Dazet v. Landry · Muller v. Norton · Federal Supply Co. v. Wichita Sales & Supply Co.

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

  1. “... in any case, the reliance must have been a reasonable one, consistent with the exercise of reasonable prudence, and the party who claims reliance must not have closed his eyes to warning or inconsistent circumstances. Authority is not ‘apparent’ simply because the party claiming has acted upon' his conclusions. It is not ‘apparent/ in contemplation of law, simply because it looked so to him. It is not a situation where one may read while he runs. It is only where a person of ordinary prudence, conversant with business usages and the nature of the particular business, acting in good faith, and giving heed not only to opposing inferences but also to all restrictions which are brought to his notice, would reasonably rely, that a case is presented within the operation of the rule. If the inferences against the existence of the authority are just as reasonable as those in favor of it, there can be.no reliance within this rule. 6”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “is in effect an estoppel against [a principal] to deny agency when by his conduct he has clothed the agent with apparent authority to act.”
    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.