apparent authority has never been used doctrine (Connecticut) · Go Syfert
← Connecticut issues

apparent authority has never been used doctrine in Connecticut

5 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1997–2016 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Conway v. Town of Wiltongreen
conn · 1996 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1997–2014
2 sentences

2014Thus, because we are bound by Con- necticut precedent; see Conway v. Wilton, 238 Conn. 653 , 658–59, 680 A.2d 242 (1996); Jolly, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 237 Conn. 184, 195 , 676 A.2d 831 (1996); we conclude that the doctrine of apparent authority is inapplicable to this case.’’ Mullen v. Horton, supra, 46 Conn. App. 771–72.

2014Thus, because we are bound by Con- necticut precedent; see Conway v. Wilton, 238 Conn. 653 , 658–59, 680 A.2d 242 (1996); Jolly, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 237 Conn. 184, 195 , 676 A.2d 831 (1996); we conclude that the doctrine of apparent authority is inapplicable to this case.’’ Mullen v. Horton, supra, 46 Conn. App. 771–72.

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Mullen v. Horton green
connappct · 1997
2 sentences

2016As we have indicated, the Appellate Court concluded that "the doctrine of apparent authority has never been used in such a manner." Id., at 772 , 700 A.2d 1377 .

2016As we have indicated, the Appellate Court concluded that "the doctrine of apparent authority has never been used in such a manner." Id., at 772 , 700 A.2d 1377 .

31999–2016
Jolly, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals green
conn · 1996
2 sentences

2014Thus, because we are bound by Con- necticut precedent; see Conway v. Wilton, 238 Conn. 653 , 658–59, 680 A.2d 242 (1996); Jolly, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 237 Conn. 184, 195 , 676 A.2d 831 (1996); we conclude that the doctrine of apparent authority is inapplicable to this case.’’ Mullen v. Horton, supra, 46 Conn. App. 771–72.

2014Thus, because we are bound by Con- necticut precedent; see Conway v. Wilton, 238 Conn. 653 , 658–59, 680 A.2d 242 (1996); Jolly, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 237 Conn. 184, 195 , 676 A.2d 831 (1996); we conclude that the doctrine of apparent authority is inapplicable to this case.’’ Mullen v. Horton, supra, 46 Conn. App. 771–72.

21997–2014

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check