agent doctrine (Virginia) · Go Syfert
← Virginia issues

agent doctrine in Virginia

9 Virginia opinions name it 3 courts 1876–2004 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Virginia 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Miles v. Rosegreen
va · 1934 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1959–1959
2 sentences

1959The passenger must be so related to the driver as that the maxim cQui facit per odium facit per se’ is applicable.” In Miles v. Rose, 162 Va. 572, 578, 588 , 175 S. E. 230 , we approved the following statement: “ ‘To constitute a joint enterprise within the meaning of the law, the parties must have a community of interest in the object and purpose of the undertaking, and an equal right to direct and govern the movements and conduct of each in respect thereto.’ ” (Cases cited.) In a series of recent cases, we have reaffirmed the definition.

1959The passenger must be so related to the driver as that the maxim cQui facit per odium facit per se’ is applicable.” In Miles v. Rose, 162 Va. 572, 578, 588 , 175 S. E. 230 , we approved the following statement: “ ‘To constitute a joint enterprise within the meaning of the law, the parties must have a community of interest in the object and purpose of the undertaking, and an equal right to direct and govern the movements and conduct of each in respect thereto.’ ” (Cases cited.) In a series of recent cases, we have reaffirmed the definition.

11
Carroll v. Hutchinsongreen
va · 1939 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 1940–1940
2 sentences

1940The passenger must be so related to the driver as that the maxim ‘Qui facit per alium, facit per se’ is applicable.” See also, Carroll v. Hutchinson, 172 Va. 43, 54, 55 , 200 S. E. 644, 649 , Here the evidence is undisputed that throughout the day the' car Was under the direction and control of Mrs. Pearce who planned and directed the trip.

1940The passenger must be so related to the driver as that the maxim ‘Qui facit per alium, facit per se’ is applicable.” See also, Carroll v. Hutchinson, 172 Va. 43, 54, 55 , 200 S. E. 644, 649 , Here the evidence is undisputed that throughout the day the' car Was under the direction and control of Mrs. Pearce who planned and directed the trip.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Forbes & Allers v. Hagman green
va · 1881
2 sentences

1876The rule is well expressed Ry Bubks, J., in Forbes & Allers v. Hagman and Graviller, 75 Va. 168 , “This was’a virtual ratification and adoption of what had been done by the agent on the principle omnis ratihdbitio retrotraliitur et mandato priori ceauiparatur, which applies as well to a tort, when done to the use or for the benefit of him who subsequently adopts it, as to a matter of contract.” The learned judge has gathered all the authorities on this subject in his elaborate opinion.

1876The rule is well expressed Ry Bubks, J., in Forbes & Allers v. Hagman and Graviller, 75 Va. 168 , “This was’a virtual ratification and adoption of what had been done by the agent on the principle omnis ratihdbitio retrotraliitur et mandato priori ceauiparatur, which applies as well to a tort, when done to the use or for the benefit of him who subsequently adopts it, as to a matter of contract.” The learned judge has gathered all the authorities on this subject in his elaborate opinion.

31876–1876
Miller v. Quarles green
va · 1991
1 sentence

2004These cases are distinguishable from Miller v. Quarles, 242 Va 343, 410 S.E.2d 639 (1991), in which the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed recovery in tort for loss of specific property placed in the care of a stockbroker’s agent as a violation of the agent’s common-law duty of reasonable care under the circumstances.

12004–2004
Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville green
va · 1985
1 sentence

1997“There must be two pefsons to commit a conspiracy; a corporation cannot conspire with itself.” Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville, 229 Va. 534 (1985).

11997–1997
Olliff v. Hartley green
gactapp · 1923
1 sentence

1956The passenger must be so related to the driver as that the maxim ‘Qui fetch per alium fetch per se’ is applicable. # # Director General of Railroads v. Pence's Adm'x., 135 Va. 329, 345 , 116 S. E. 351 .

11956–1956
Director General v. Pence's Administratrix green
va · 1923
1 sentence

1956The passenger must be so related to the driver as that the maxim ‘Qui fetch per alium fetch per se’ is applicable. # # Director General of Railroads v. Pence's Adm'x., 135 Va. 329, 345 , 116 S. E. 351 .

11956–1956
Virginia Railway & Power Co. v. Gorsuch green
va · 1917
2 sentences

1952The passenger must be so related to the driver as that the maxim ‘Qui facit per alium facit per se’ is applicable.” Defendant’s contention was rejected by this court in Virginia Ry., etc., Co. v. Gorsuch, 120 Va. 655 , 91 S. E. 632 , Ann.

1952The passenger must be so related to the driver as that the maxim ‘Qui facit per alium facit per se’ is applicable.” Defendant’s contention was rejected by this court in Virginia Ry., etc., Co. v. Gorsuch, 120 Va. 655 , 91 S. E. 632 , Ann.

11952–1952

Where else courts name it

IL 15 (1882–2026) CA 11 (1956–2023) NY 10 (1823–2004) VA 9 (1876–2004) TX 8 (1909–2023) PA 8 (1937–2021) CO 8 (1883–1994) MI 8 (1950–2023) GA 7 (1884–2025) AL 5 (1926–2025) NC 5 (1953–2015) SC 5 (1926–2009) FL 5 (1930–2015) WY 5 (1995–2020) CT 4 (1939–2016) OH 4 (1871–2012) MO 4 (1904–1991) MA 4 (1960–2003) MN 4 (1906–1964) NJ 4 (1913–2012) KY 4 (1930–1951) KS 4 (1892–2014) WI 3 (1978–1998) OK 3 (1923–1933) LA 3 (1930–1979) AZ 2 (1945–2013) DE 2 (2016–2016) RI 2 (2006–2007) IA 2 (1899–1985) IN 2 (1909–1985) SD 2 (2019–2019) MS 2 (1986–1993) ND 2 (1917–1979) VT 2 (1972–1988)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check