Legal Opinion
Iowa National Mutual Insurance v. Backens
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided May 4, 1971No. 69PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBeilfuss, J.
The parties have presented two issues on this appeal:(1) Was Howard Backens an apparent agent or did he have apparent authority to act on behalf of the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company?(2) If Backens was not an apparent agent, did the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company have the duty to regulate and supervise the operation of his business for the protection of his customers?
The first issue tried by the court was whether an apparent or ostensible agency existed between Backens, as an apparent agent, and Goodyear as principal. It is undisputed that at no time was Backens an actual agent of Goodyear.
In…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mitchell v. WESTERN CASAULTY & SURETY CO.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Ivers & Pond Piano Co. v. PeckhamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Hansche v. A. J. Conroy, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
- Domasek v. KluckWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
- Everlite Manufacturing Co. v. Grand Valley MacHine & Tool Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- All-Tech Telecom, Inc. v. Amway CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1999
- Robert E. Pincus v. Pabst Brewing Company, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990
- Sanchez v. Medicorp Health SystemSupreme Court of Virginia · 2005
- Hoeft v. United States Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1989
- Silberman v. RoetheWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.