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.
7 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1947–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama 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 |
|---|---|---|
Myers v. Ellisongreen2 sentences2009In Myers v. Ellison, 249 Ala. 367, 369 , 31 So.2d 353, 355 (1947), this Court stated: “‘An agent sustains a position of trust toward his principal and in all transactions affecting the subject of his agency, the law dictates that he *260 must act in the utmost good faith and must make known to his principal ... all material facts within his knowledge which in any way affect the transaction and subject matter of his agency. “ ‘The law sedulously regards this principle and acts of an agent which tend to violate this fiduciary obligation are prima facie voidable, and are considered, in law, as “f 2009In Myers v. Ellison, 249 Ala. 367, 369 , 31 So.2d 353, 355 (1947), this Court stated: “‘An agent sustains a position of trust toward his principal and in all transactions affecting the subject of his agency, the law dictates that he *260 must act in the utmost good faith and must make known to his principal ... all material facts within his knowledge which in any way affect the transaction and subject matter of his agency. “ ‘The law sedulously regards this principle and acts of an agent which tend to violate this fiduciary obligation are prima facie voidable, and are considered, in law, as “f | 3 | 5 |
Williams v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2009See, Williams v. Williams, 497 So.2d 481 (Ala.[1986]); Lauderdale v. Peace Baptist Church of Birmingham, 246 Ala. 178 , 19 So.2d 538 (1944). “ ‘ “An agent sustains a position of trust toward his principal and in all transactions affecting the subject of the agency, the law dictates that he must act in the utmost good faith and must make known to his principal each and all material facts within his knowledge which in any way affect the transaction and subject matter of his agency. “ ‘ “The law sedulously regards this principle and acts of an agent which tend to violate this fiduciary obligation 2009See, Williams v. Williams, 497 So.2d 481 (Ala.[1986]); Lauderdale v. Peace Baptist Church of Birmingham, 246 Ala. 178 , 19 So.2d 538 (1944). "`"An agent sustains a position of trust toward his principal and in all transactions affecting the subject of the agency, the law dictates that he must act in the utmost good faith and must make known to his principal each and all material facts within his knowledge which in any way affect the transaction and subject matter of his agency. "`"The law sedulously regards this principle and acts of an agent which tend to violate this fiduciary obligation are | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lamb v. Scott
green
2 sentences2009This Court held that in order to act against the intent of the donee as expressed in her will, the attorney-in-fact had to have the express authority to do so. 643 So.2d at 973 . 2000This Court held that in order to act against the intent of the donee as expressed in her will, the attorney-in-fact had to have the express authority to do so. 643 So.2d at 973 . | 2 | 2000–2009 |
Lauderdale v. Peace Baptist Church
green
2 sentences2009See, Williams v. Williams, 497 So.2d 481 (Ala.[1986]); Lauderdale v. Peace Baptist Church of Birmingham, 246 Ala. 178 , 19 So.2d 538 (1944). “ ‘ “An agent sustains a position of trust toward his principal and in all transactions affecting the subject of the agency, the law dictates that he must act in the utmost good faith and must make known to his principal each and all material facts within his knowledge which in any way affect the transaction and subject matter of his agency. “ ‘ “The law sedulously regards this principle and acts of an agent which tend to violate this fiduciary obligation 2009See, Williams v. Williams, 497 So.2d 481 (Ala.[1986]); Lauderdale v. Peace Baptist Church of Birmingham, 246 Ala. 178 , 19 So.2d 538 (1944). “ ‘ “An agent sustains a position of trust toward his principal and in all transactions affecting the subject of the agency, the law dictates that he must act in the utmost good faith and must make known to his principal each and all material facts within his knowledge which in any way affect the transaction and subject matter of his agency. “ ‘ “The law sedulously regards this principle and acts of an agent which tend to violate this fiduciary obligation | 2 | 2008–2009 |
Broughton v. Detroit Trust Co.
neutral
2 sentences1947The law sedulously regards this principle and acts of an agent which tend to violate this fiduciary obligation are prima facie voidable (Broughton v. Detroit Trust Co., 271 Mich. 701 , 261 N.W. 115 ; 3 C.J.S., Agency, § 144a [2], page 22), and are considered, in law, as “frauds upon confidence bestowed.” 3 C.J.S., Agency, § 138a, page 7. 1947The law sedulously regards this principle and acts of an agent which tend to violate this fiduciary obligation are prima facie voidable (Broughton v. Detroit Trust Co., 271 Mich. 701 , 261 N.W. 115 ; 3 C.J.S., Agency, § 144a [2], page 22), and are considered, in law, as “frauds upon confidence bestowed.” 3 C.J.S., Agency, § 138a, page 7. | 1 | 1947–1947 |