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.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 15 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Skanga Energy & Marine Ltd. v. Arevenca S.A..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Skanga Energy & Marine Ltd. v. Arevenca S.A. Anchor | green | “a plaintiff need only allege facts sufficient to support a reasonable inference of actual authority, and its pleadings may rely upon facts that would constitute circumstantial evidence of authority.” | 4 |
| 2 | De Sole v. Knoedler Gallery, LLC | green | “the doctrine of respondeat superior does not render a parent company liable for the conduct of a subsidiary” | 3 |
| 3 | Skanga Energy & Marine Ltd. v. Arevenca S.A. | green | “to adequately allege an actual agency relationship, a plaintiff need only allege facts sufficient to support a reasonable inference of actual authority, and its pleadings may rely upon facts that would constitute circumstantial evidence of authority.” | 3 |
| 4 | Spagnola v. Chubb Corp. | green | “a parent corporation may be held accountable for the wrongs of its subsidiary under an agency theory, courts have long ago concluded that such a finding is remote.” | 3 |
| 5 | Weiss v. National Westminster Bank PLC | green | “must establish personal jurisdiction with respect to each claim asserted.” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.