Taylor v. Armiger Body Shop

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that there were no facts to show that the defendant held out the purported agent as having authority to sell a vehicle which was in the possession of the purported' agent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Glass v. Southern Wrecker Sales
  M.D. Alabama· 1998-01-09· cited 20×
• F.E. Myers Co. v. Pipe Maintenance Services, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 1984-12-06· cited 20×
• Taylor v. Armiger Body Shop
  Court of Chancery of Delaware· 1961-05-26· cited 3×
• Facciolo v. State Division of Revenue
  Supreme Court of Delaware· 1976-04-28· cited 1×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Leitch v. Sanford Motor Truck Co.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1924-01-07· cited 47×
• Associates Discount Corporation v. Hardesty
  D.C. Circuit· 1941-05-05· cited 15×
• Gaub v. Mosher
  New Jersey Court of Chancery· 1925-06-03· cited 10×
• E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Laird
  Court of Chancery of Delaware· 1939-07-29· cited 8×

Other cases named Taylor v. Armiger Body Shop

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Taylor v. Armiger Body Shop
  Court of Chancery of Delaware· 1961-05-26· cited 3×