Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Canyon State Canners, Inc. v. Hooks, 243 P.2d 1023.

41 citing documents.

Schnurr v. Banner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Schnurr v. Banner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
7 SCHNURR, et al. v. BANNER, (holding apparent agency requires “conduct of a principal that allows a third party reasonably to conclude that an agent is authorized to make certain representations or act in a particular way”); (holding apparent agency exists when the principal has “induced third persons to believe that such a person was its agent”).
Augee v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Augee v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
lead[ing] another to believe in and to rely on the agency.” (quoting 2 C.J.S.
Eisen v. Coonfer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Eisen v. Coonfer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶21 Implied actual authority must be inferred “based on facts for which the principal is responsible.” Canyon State Canners, (citation omitted).
brooks/phoenix v. Hon. Agne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
brooks/phoenix v. Hon. Agne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Augee v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Augee v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(emphasis added) (quoting 2 C.J.S., Agency § 23, at 1045-46).
Griego v. Ada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Griego v. Ada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Goodman v. Physical Resource Engineering, Inc. 270 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Goodman v. Physical Resource Engineering, Inc. 270 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
4 Apparent agency exists when “„the principal has intentionally or inadvertently induced third persons to believe that such a person was its agent although no actual or express authority was conferred on him as agent.‟” Curran, 156 Ariz. at 437, 752 P.2d at 526
Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Centers West, L.L.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
e turn then to the question of whether Florentine had actual authority to bind Robert to the ADR agreement.6 The estate argues “[t]here can be no dispute that Florentine was not Robert’s express agent” because, inter alia, “there was no express contract of agency.” But, as noted above, “[t]he authority of an actual agent can be either express, or implied.” Canyon State Canners, see also Brown v. Ariz. Dep’t of Real Estate, (“Agency may be proven by an express contract between the parties or by f
Henry v. Flagstaff Medical Center, Inc. 132 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Henry v. Flagstaff Medical Center, Inc. 132 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(holding that “[t]he ostensible agent is one where the principal has intentionally or inadvertently induced third persons to believe that such a person was its agent although no actual or express authority was conferred on him as agent”) (quoting Canyon State Canners, , ).
Curran v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 752 P.2d 523 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Curran v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 752 P.2d 523 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Miller v. Mason-McDuffie Co. of So. Cal. 739 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1987
Miller v. Mason-McDuffie Co. of So. Cal. 739 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1987
(“the ostensible agent is one where the principal has intentionally or inadvertently induced third persons to believe that such a person was its agent although no actual or express authority was conferred”)
Gulf Insurance v. Grisham 613 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1980
Gulf Insurance v. Grisham 613 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1980
Holsclaw v. Catalina Savings & Loan Association 476 P.2d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Holsclaw v. Catalina Savings & Loan Association 476 P.2d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
See Land-Air, , and cases cited; -381 , ; Canyon State Canners, -73 , -1025 (1952).
Hayward Lumber & Investment Company v. Graham 449 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1968
Hayward Lumber & Investment Company v. Graham 449 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1968
Land-Air, Inc. v. Parker 435 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1967
OS Stapley Company v. Logan 431 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
OS Stapley Company v. Logan 431 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
In effect, therefore, an agent’s apparent authority is, as to third persons dealing in good faith with the subject of his agency and entitled to rely on such appearance, his real authority, and it may apply to a single transaction, or to a series of transactions.” , the Court in essence agreed, holding that an ostensible agent is one where the principal has intentionally or inadvertently induced a third person to believe that such a person was its agent, although no actual or express authority w
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. State 430 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. State 430 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Land-Air v. Parker 420 P.2d 967 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Land-Air v. Parker 420 P.2d 967 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Boies v. Cole 407 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1965
Boies v. Cole 407 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1965
THIRD: While there are only two types of agency, actual and ostensible, , , actual agency may arise from implication; that is, be implied from the facts and circumstances.
Aetna Loan Company v. Apache Trailer Sales 402 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Aetna Loan Company v. Apache Trailer Sales 402 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
* * * ” Canyon State Canners v. Hooks (1952), , .
EUREKA-SECURITY FIRE & MARINE INSU. CO. v. Simon 401 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
EUREKA-SECURITY FIRE & MARINE INSU. CO. v. Simon 401 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965