Veranda Beach Club Limited Partnership v. Western Surety Co Frg Veranda Beach Club Limited Partnership’s Empirical Analysis
936 F.2d 1364 · 1991
Citation profile
76 federal appellate · 18 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably United States v. Brandon (1994), Correa v. Hospital San Francisco (1995)
76 federal appellate · 18 district · 8 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Huddleston v. United States · National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc. · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate J Bosch Second National Bank of New Haven · United States v. White · Delaware v. New York
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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[TJrials were never meant to be antiseptic affairs; it is only unfair prejudice, not prejudice per se, against which Rule 403 guards.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... apparent authority is that authority resulting from conduct by the principal which causes a third person reasonably to believe that a particular person has authority to make representations as his agent. Hudson v. Massachusetts Property Ins. Underwriting Ass’n, 386 Mass. 450 , 436 N.E.2d 155, 159 (1982). The requirement that the principal’s conduct must engender a reasonable belief in the agent’s authority implicates the theory of agency by estoppel. “If a third person goes on to change his position in rebanee on this reasonable belief, the principal is estopped from denying that the agency is authorized.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In determining whether the Government has introduced sufficient evidence to meet Rule 104(b), the trial court neither weighs credibility nor makes a finding that the Government has proved the conditional fact by a preponderance of the evidence. The court simply examines all the evidence in the case and decides whether the jury could reasonably find the conditional fact ... by a preponderance of the evidence.”
2 later decisions 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.