Fejta v. GAF Companies, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
800 F.2d 1395 · 1986
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently January 2023
7 federal appellate · 1 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 Turner v. Snype · East Parker Properties, Inc. v. Pelican Realty Co. · 335 So. 2d 37 - Rebman v. Reed · Daigle & Associates, Inc. v. Coleman
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘a contract entered into by an agent, though voidable for lack of authority to act, may be ratified by the principal.’ Daigle & Assoc., Inc. v. Coleman, 385 So.2d 349, 350 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980) (citations omitted). ‘It has been held that an agreement to purchase affecting immovable property can be ratified only in writing [ (emphasis added) ].’ Id. (citing Krupp v. Nelson, 50 So.2d 464 (La.Ct. App.1951)). In the instant case there was no written ratification of the contract to sell. Because Fejta was not authorized in writing to act as Mentel’s agent in transacting the sale, and because Mentel did not ratify the contract to sell in writing ... the contract to sell was unenforceable. [[Image here]] Because no writing was entered into evidence either authorizing Fejta to act as Mentel’s agent in transacting the sale or ratifying the contract ... we find that under Louisiana law the contract to sell was unenforceable.”
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.