McDermott v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
1897
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently May 1994 · most notably 183 Wis. 2d 587 - State Ex Rel. Flores v. State (1994), Fraser v. Ætna Life Insurance Co. (1902)
1 federal appellate · 38 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 Atlantic Cotton Mills v. Indian Orchard Mills · New York Iron Mine v. First National Bank · Bickford v. . Menier · Cannon v. Home Insurance Company of New York · Lawson v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If a third person, because of appearances for which the principal was responsible, believes and has reasonable ground to believe that the agent possessed power to act for the principal in the particular transaction, if such third person was, in the exercise of reasonable prudence, justified in believing that the agent possessed the necessary authority, then the principal is responsible to such third person the same as if the agent possessed all the power he assumed to possess.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Voell v. Klein · DeByle v. Roberts““If a principal so conducts his business, either through negligence or otherwise, as to lead the public to believe that his agent possesses authority to contract in the name of the principal, such principal is bound by the acts of such agent, within the scope of his apparent authority, in so contracting with any person who, upon the faith of such holding out, believes, and has reasonable ground to believe, that the agent has such authority, and in good faith deals with him, even though such agent have express secret instructions to the contrary. . . . Did the third person, because of appearances for which the principal was responsible, believe, and have reasonable ground to believe, that the agent possessed power to act for the principal in the particular transaction ? If such third person was, in the exercise of reasonable prudence, justified in believing that the agent possessed the necessary-authority, then the principal is responsible to such third person the same as if the agent possessed all the power he assumed to possess.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Idzik v. Reddick
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.