Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 71 CALAPP2D 676 - Stevens v. Hutton

Stevens v. Hutton’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
December 1963
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 1963

12 state decisions

40194519501960decided

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 In Re Estate of Cover · Smith v. Lombard · Brown v. Canadian Indus. Alcohol Co. · 8 Cal. App. 450 - Hemenway v. Abbott · 80 Cal. App. 538 - Johnson v. Studley

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

  1. ““One employed as agent violates no duty to the principal by acting for his own benefit if he makes a full disclosure of the facts to an acquiescent principal and takes no unfair advantage of him. Before dealing with the principal on his own account, however, an agent has a duty, not only to make no misstatements of fact, but also to disclose to the principal all relevant facts fully and completely. A fact is relevant if it is one which the agent should realize would be likely to affect the judgment of the principal in giving his consent to the agent to enter into the particular transaction on the specific terms. Hence, the disclosure must include not only the fact that the agent is acting on his own account (see § 389), hut also all other facts which he should realize have or are likely to have a bearing upon the desirability of the t-ransactidh from the viewpoint of the principal. This includes, in the case of sales to him by the principal, not only the price which can be obtained, but also all facts affecting the desirability of sale, such as the likelihood of a higher price being obtained later, the possibilities of dealing with the property in another way, and all other matters which a disinterested and skillful agent advising the principal would think reasonably relevant. “If the principal has limited business experience, an agent cannot properly fail to give such information merely because the principal says he does not care for it; the agent’s duty of fair dealing is s”
    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.