Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pamperin v. Trinity Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences2017For liability to exist under the doctrine of apparent authority, three elements must be met: "(1) Acts by the agent or principal justifying belief in the agency; (2) knowledge thereof by the party sought to be held [here, the City]; (3) reliance thereon by the plaintiff, consistent with ordinary care and prudence." Pamperin v. Trinity Mem'l Hosp., 144 Wis. 2d 188, 203 , 423 N.W.2d 848 (1988) (citation omitted). 2017For liability to exist under the doctrine of apparent authority, three elements must be met: "(1) Acts by the agent or principal justifying belief in the agency; (2) knowledge thereof by the party sought to be held [here, the City]; (3) reliance thereon by the plaintiff, consistent with ordinary care and prudence." Pamperin v. Trinity Mem'l Hosp., 144 Wis. 2d 188, 203 , 423 N.W.2d 848 (1988) (citation omitted). | 1 | 4 |
Casteel v. Vaadegreen2 sentences1995Kashishian extended the rationale underlying Pamperin to all hospital services, see Kashishian, 167 Wis. 2d at 37 , 481 N.W.2d at 281 (doctrine of apparent authority can apply "when a patient is admitted by her own personal attending physician and then receives services at the hospital"), and adopted Pamperin's three-part test: 1) the hospital, or the individual alleged to be negligent, acted in a manner which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the hospital; 2) where the acts of the individual alleged to be 1995Id., 144 Wis. 2d at 211-212 , 423 N.W.2d at 857 . [3] Kashishian extended the rationale underlying Pamperin to all hospital services, see Kashishian, 167 Wis. 2d at 37 , 481 N.W.2d at 281 (doctrine of apparent authority can apply "when a patient is admitted by her own personal attending physician and then receives services at the hospital"), and adopted Pamperin's three-part test: 1) the hospital, or the individual alleged to be negligent, acted in a manner which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the hospi | 1 | 2 |
Ivers & Pond Piano Co. v. Peckhamgreen2 sentences2020See Ivers & Pond Piano Co. v. Peckham, 29 Wis. 2d 364, 370-71 , 139 N.W.2d 57 (1966). 2020See Ivers & Pond Piano Co. v. Peckham, 29 Wis. 2d 364, 370-71 , 139 N.W.2d 57 (1966). | 1 | 1 |
Doctors Hospital of Augusta, Inc. v. Bonnergreen2 sentences1992See, e.g., Doctors Hosp. of Augusta v. Bonner, 392 S.E.2d 897 (Ga. App. 1990); Sharsmith v. Hill, 764 P.2d 667 (Wyo. 1988); Sztorc v. Northwest Hosp., 496 N.E.2d 1200 (Ill. 1992See, e.g., Doctors Hosp. of Augusta v. Bonner, 392 S.E.2d 897 (Ga. App. 1990); Sharsmith v. Hill, 764 P.2d 667 (Wyo. 1988); Sztorc v. Northwest Hosp., 496 N.E.2d 1200 (Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Hardy v. Brantleygreen2 sentences1988In Hardy v. Brantley, 471 So. 2d 358, 371 (Miss. 1985), the court held that a hospital may be liable under apparent authority for the negligence of an emergency room doctor who failed to properly diagnose and treat a patient who came to the emergency room for treatment of severe abdominal pain. 1988In Hardy v. Brantley, 471 So. 2d 358, 371 (Miss. 1985), the court held that a hospital may be liable under apparent authority for the negligence of an emergency room doctor who failed to properly diagnose and treat a patient who came to the emergency room for treatment of severe abdominal pain. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 316-17 , 533 N.W.2d 780 . ¶ 22 In BBB Doe, one or more of the plaintiffs alleged claims against the Archdiocese "for negligent training, placement, and supervision of the priest, liability under the doctrine of apparent authority, and for breach of duty under Wis. Stat. § 48.981 [(1995-96)] to report abuse and mitigate harm." BBB Doe, 211 Wis.2d at 322 , 565 N.W.2d 94 . 2007In BBB Doe, one or more of the plaintiffs alleged claims against the Archdiocese "for negligent training, placement, and supervision of the priest, liability under the doctrine of apparent authority, and for breach of duty under Wis. Stat. § 48.981 [(1995-96)] to report abuse and mitigate harm." BBB Doe, 211 Wis. 2d at 322 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 316-17 , 533 N.W.2d 780 . ¶ 22 In BBB Doe, one or more of the plaintiffs alleged claims against the Archdiocese "for negligent training, placement, and supervision of the priest, liability under the doctrine of apparent authority, and for breach of duty under Wis. Stat. § 48.981 [(1995-96)] to report abuse and mitigate harm." BBB Doe, 211 Wis.2d at 322 , 565 N.W.2d 94 . 2007Id. at 316-17 , 533 N.W.2d 780 . ¶ 22 In BBB Doe, one or more of the plaintiffs alleged claims against the Archdiocese "for negligent training, placement, and supervision of the priest, liability under the doctrine of apparent authority, and for breach of duty under Wis. Stat. § 48.981 [(1995-96)] to report abuse and mitigate harm." BBB Doe, 211 Wis.2d at 322 , 565 N.W.2d 94 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Kashishian v. Port
green
2 sentences1995Kashishian extended the rationale underlying Pamperin to all hospital services, see Kashishian, 167 Wis. 2d at 37 , 481 N.W.2d at 281 (doctrine of apparent authority can apply "when a patient is admitted by her own personal attending physician and then receives services at the hospital"), and adopted Pamperin's three-part test: 1) the hospital, or the individual alleged to be negligent, acted in a manner which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the hospital; 2) where the acts of the individual alleged to be 1995Id., 144 Wis. 2d at 211-212 , 423 N.W.2d at 857 . [3] Kashishian extended the rationale underlying Pamperin to all hospital services, see Kashishian, 167 Wis. 2d at 37 , 481 N.W.2d at 281 (doctrine of apparent authority can apply "when a patient is admitted by her own personal attending physician and then receives services at the hospital"), and adopted Pamperin's three-part test: 1) the hospital, or the individual alleged to be negligent, acted in a manner which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the hospi | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Marth v. Edwards
neutral
1 sentence1995Respondents, relying on the court of appeals reasoning in Marth , claim this ambiguity should be resolved by requiring express authority to bind a partnership in real estate purchases because, as the court, of appeals in Marth stated, "Chapter 178, Stats., is not a vehicle for protection of those individuals involved in real estate transactions with partnerships." Marth, 159 Wis. 2d at 781 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Sharsmith v. Hill
green
2 sentences1992See, e.g., Doctors Hosp. of Augusta v. Bonner, 392 S.E.2d 897 (Ga. App. 1990); Sharsmith v. Hill, 764 P.2d 667 (Wyo. 1988); Sztorc v. Northwest Hosp., 496 N.E.2d 1200 (Ill. 1992See, e.g., Doctors Hosp. of Augusta v. Bonner, 392 S.E.2d 897 (Ga. App. 1990); Sharsmith v. Hill, 764 P.2d 667 (Wyo. 1988); Sztorc v. Northwest Hosp., 496 N.E.2d 1200 (Ill. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Sztorc v. Northwest Hospital
green
2 sentences1992See, e.g., Doctors Hosp. of Augusta v. Bonner, 392 S.E.2d 897 (Ga. App. 1990); Sharsmith v. Hill, 764 P.2d 667 (Wyo. 1988); Sztorc v. Northwest Hosp., 496 N.E.2d 1200 (Ill. 1992See, e.g., Doctors Hosp. of Augusta v. Bonner, 392 S.E.2d 897 (Ga. App. 1990); Sharsmith v. Hill, 764 P.2d 667 (Wyo. 1988); Sztorc v. Northwest Hosp., 496 N.E.2d 1200 (Ill. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Grewe v. Mount Clemens General Hospital
green
2 sentences1988Clemens Hospital, 404 Mich. 240, 250-51 , 273 N.W.2d 429 (1978). *204 The courts adopting apparent authority have noted a number of reasons why the doctrine of apparent authority should be applied to suits against hospitals. 1988Clemens Hospital, 404 Mich. 240, 250-51 , 273 N.W.2d 429 (1978). *204 The courts adopting apparent authority have noted a number of reasons why the doctrine of apparent authority should be applied to suits against hospitals. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Schaefer v. Dudarenke
green
2 sentences1988Schaefer v. Dudarenke, 89 Wis. 2d 483, 489-90 , 278 N.W.2d 844 (1979). 1988Schaefer v. Dudarenke, 89 Wis. 2d 483, 489-90 , 278 N.W.2d 844 (1979). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.