Daniel v. Pappas’s Empirical Analysis
1923
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently May 1985
2 federal appellate · 19 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 Prowant v. Sealy · Jones v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Midland Savings & Loan Co. v. Sutton · National Surety Co. v. Miozrany · Crosbie v. National Bank of Commerce
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In this connection, one dealing with a known agent has a right to presume thht the agency is general and not special and the presumption is that one known to be an agent is acting within the scope of his authority. Where an agent is held out as having authority of a general agent, any private instructions or limitations upon his authority not communicated or known to those dealing with such agent will not relieve the principal from liability incurred where the agent oversteps such limitations. Minn. Thresh. Mach. Co. v. Humphrey, 27 Okla. 694 , 117 Pac. 203 ; Emerson-Brantingham Imp. Co. v. Ritter, 69 Okla. 95 , 170 Pac. 482 ; Midland Savings & Loan Co. v. Sutton et al., 30 Okla. 448 , 120 Pac. 1007 ; Nat. Surety Co. v. Miozrany, 53 Okla. 322 , 156 Pac. 651 .””
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.