California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 2317 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Ostensible authority is such as a principal, intentionally or by want of ordinary care, causes or allows a third person to believe the agent to possess.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1904–2025 · leading case: Dill v. Berquist Constr. Co., 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3269 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994).
Dill v. Berquist Constr. Co., 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3269 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994). “” (Civ. Code, § 2317.) Since a corporate outsider does not usually know the extent of actual authority of corporate employees, the doctrine of ostensible authority allows outsiders to assume that the corporate employees possess the authority they appear to have.”
Gulf Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co., 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 594 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “Gulf counters that the evidence is sufficient to establish ostensible agency which is statutorily defined as follows, “Actual authority is such as a principal intentionally confers upon the agent, or intentionally, or by want of ordinary care, allows the agent to believe himself…”
Valentine v. Plum Healthcare Grp., LLC, 249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 905 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019). “" ( Civ. Code, § 2317.) There is no evidence Lila intentionally designated Roy as her agent with authority to enter arbitration agreements on her behalf.”
Van't Rood v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10052 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). “(Civ. Code, § 2317.) An agent will normally have the authority to do everything necessary or proper and usual in the ordinary course of business for effecting the purpose of his agency.”
Pierson v. Helmerich & Payne Internat. Drilling Co. CA5, 81 Cal. Comp. Cases 993 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “Thus, Pierson’s argument about an imputed request can be rephrased as an argument about ostensible authority. “Ostensible authority is such as a principal, intentionally or by want of ordinary care, causes or allows a third person to believe the agent to possess.”
Garlock Sealing Tech., LLC v. Nak Sealing Tech. Corp., 2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3017 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “” (Civ. Code, § 2317.) *967 The trial court found that even if the relationship between Mao Shun and Sunrise Trading was not one of actual agency, there was an ostensible agency as to the transactions with Garlock.”
J.L. v. Child.'s Inst.,Inc., 177 Cal. App. 4th 388 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). “) [][] An agent has the authority that the principal, actually or ostensibly, confers upon him.”
Young v. Horizon West, Inc., 220 Cal. App. 4th 1122 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “) “An agent has such authority as the principal, actually or ostensibly, confers upon him.” (Civ. Code, § 2315.) Ostensible authority “is such as a principal, intentionally or by want of ordinary care, causes or allows a third person to believe the agent to possess.”
Hobart v. Hobart Est. Co., 159 P.2d 958 (Cal. 1945). “This contention is based on the doctrine of ostensible authority, which is defined as such authority “as a principal, intentionally or by want of ordinary care, causes or allows a third person to believe the agent to possess” (Civ.”
Am. Way Cellular, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co., 216 Cal. App. 4th 1040 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “” (Civ. Code, § 2317.) “Before recovery can be had against the principal for the acts of an ostensible agent, three requirements must be met: The person dealing with an agent must do so with a reasonable belief in the agent’s authority, such belief must be generated by some act…”
Taylor v. Roseville Toyota, Inc., 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3362 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). “Although there was no evidence Campbell had actual authority to give this express permission to Lewis to use the car, there is sufficient evidence of Campbell’s ostensible authority to give such permission. Ostensible authority is authority that the principal, either…”
Lebel v. Mai, 210 Cal. App. 4th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). “(Civ. Code, § 2317; see Judicial Council of Cal.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.