25 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Boulos v. Morrisongreen2 sentences2006Louisiana jurisprudence created the doctrine of apparent authority in *860 an effort to protect third parties "unauthorized acts of an apparent agent." Boulos v. Morrison, 503 So.2d 1, 3 (La.1987). 2002As the Louisiana Supreme Court instructed in Boulos v. Morrison, 503 So.2d 1, 3 (La.1987) regarding the pre-1997 law: For the doctrine of apparent authority to apply, the principal must first act to manifest the alleged agent's authority to an innocent third party. | 2 | 7 |
Anderson Window & Patio Co. v. Dumasgreen2 sentences2013Anderson Window & Patio Co. v. Dumas, 560 So.2d 971, 975 (La.App. 4th Cir.1990). 1996Anderson Window & Patio Co. v. Dumas, 560 So.2d 971, 975 (La.App. 4th Cir.1990). | 2 | 2 |
Washington v. Reedgreen1 sentence2022Id., 1994-0416, p. 3, 646 So.2d at 1144 (citing Washington v. Reed, 624 So.2d 465, 469 (La. | 1 | 1 |
Tresch v. Kilgoregreen1 sentence2008See Id. at 95 . | 1 | 1 |
AAA Tire & Export, Inc. v. Big Chief Truck Lines, Inc.green1 sentence1988Lilliedahl & Mitchel, Inc. v. Avoyelles Trust & Savings Bank, 352 So.2d 781, 787 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1977); AAA Tire & Export, Inc. v. Big Chief Truck Lines, Inc., 385 So.2d 426, 429-30 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Lilliedahl & Mitchel v. Avoyelles Trust & Sav.green1 sentence1988Lilliedahl & Mitchel, Inc. v. Avoyelles Trust & Savings Bank, 352 So.2d 781, 787 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1977); AAA Tire & Export, Inc. v. Big Chief Truck Lines, Inc., 385 So.2d 426, 429-30 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Broadway v. All-Star Insurance Corporation
green
2 sentences2012Broadway, supra; Interstate Electric Co., supra. For the doctrine of apparent authority to apply, the principal must first act to manifest the alleged agent’s authority to an innocent third party. 1997Broadway, supra; Interstate Electric Co., supra. For the doctrine of apparent authority to apply, the principal must first act to manifest the alleged agent’s authority to an innocent third party. | 4 | 1987–2012 |
Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007The Supreme Court held that while there is no express codal or statutory authority for the doctrine of apparent authority in Louisiana, it is an important part of the modern law of agency, and has been utilized by the courts in this state "to protect third persons by treating a principal who has manifested an agent's authority to third persons as if the principal had actually granted the authority to the agent." Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc., 540 So.2d at 963 . 2003Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc., 521 So.2d 717 (La.App. 2d Cir.1988), aff'd 540 So.2d 960 (La.1989). | 3 | 2000–2007 |
Luccia v. Cummings
green
1 sentence2022Id., 1994-0416, p. 3, 646 So.2d at 1144 (citing Washington v. Reed, 624 So.2d 465, 469 (La. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Fluid Disposal Specialties, Inc. v. UniFirst Corp.
neutral
1 sentence2022App. 2 Cir. 1/13/16), pp. 13- 15, 186 So. 3d 210 , 218-219: In the past, Louisiana courts jurisprudentially recognized the doctrine of apparent authority. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Lifetime Construction, L.L.C. v. Lake Marina Tower Condominium Ass'n
green
1 sentence2014Ass’n, Inc., 12-487,12-488, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/27/13), 117 So.3d 109, 115 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Reeves v. Celestron, Inc.
green
1 sentence2008Walton contends that under the doctrine of apparent authority, Home, as a distributor, may be an agent of the manufacturer/seller, Centria, of the products it distributes, citing Reeves v. Celestron, Inc., 473 So.2d 397 (La.App. 3rd Cir.), writ not considered, 477 So.2d 698 (La.1985). [9] In making this argument, Walton implies that Horne, as Centria's agent, had apparent authority to bind Centria to the purchase agreement that Horne executed with Walton, such that Centria would be liable for the acts and/or omissions of Horne. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State ex rel. Glasper v. Louisiana Department of Corrections
neutral
1 sentence2008Walton contends that under the doctrine of apparent authority, Home, as a distributor, may be an agent of the manufacturer/seller, Centria, of the products it distributes, citing Reeves v. Celestron, Inc., 473 So.2d 397 (La.App. 3rd Cir.), writ not considered, 477 So.2d 698 (La.1985). [9] In making this argument, Walton implies that Horne, as Centria's agent, had apparent authority to bind Centria to the purchase agreement that Horne executed with Walton, such that Centria would be liable for the acts and/or omissions of Horne. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc.
green
1 sentence2003Tedesco v. Gentry Development, Inc., 521 So.2d 717 (La.App. 2d Cir.1988), aff'd 540 So.2d 960 (La.1989). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Kobuszewski v. Scriber
green
1 sentence2003Boulos v. Morrison, 503 So.2d 1 (La.1987); Kobuszewski v. Scriber, 518 So.2d 524 (La. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Clampit v. Interstate Dodge, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2002Clampit v. Interstate Dodge, Inc., 34,125 (La.App.2d Cir.11/15/00), 771 So.2d 311 , writ denied, 00-3412 (La.2/2/01), 784 So.2d 649 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Clampit v. INTERSTATE DODGE INC.
neutral
1 sentence2002Clampit v. Interstate Dodge, Inc., 34,125 (La.App.2d Cir.11/15/00), 771 So.2d 311 , writ denied, 00-3412 (La.2/2/01), 784 So.2d 649 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Rowell v. Carter Mobile Homes, Inc.
green
2 sentences1995The court of appeal cited Rowell v. Carter Mobile Homes, Inc., 500 So.2d 748 (La.1987), which stated: "Liability for the negligent and tortious acts of another does not flow simply because of a principal-agent or principal-mandatary relationship." 500 So.2d at 751 . 1995The court of appeal cited Rowell v. Carter Mobile Homes, Inc., 500 So.2d 748 (La.1987), which stated: "Liability for the negligent and tortious acts of another does not flow simply because of a principal-agent or principal-mandatary relationship." 500 So.2d at 751 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Ideal Savings & Homestead Ass'n v. Kerner
green
1 sentence1988Ideal Savings & Homestead Association v. Kerner, 208 La. 513 , 519, 23 So.2d 200 , 202 (1945). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Ideal Savings Homestead Ass'n v. Kerner
green
1 sentence1988Ideal Savings & Homestead Association v. Kerner, 208 La. 513 , 519, 23 So.2d 200 , 202 (1945). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Busby v. Walker
green
1 sentence1976"The doctrine of apparent authority requires (1) that the principal make manifestations to a third party in some form, and (2) that the third party reasonably rely on the agent's purported authority as a result of the manifestations of the principal." The concept of apparent authority was expressed in Busby v. Walker, supra, as follows: ". . . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.