Legal Opinion
Holley v. Crank
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 31, 2001No. 99-56611PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HUG, Circuit Judge:
In this case we must decide whether owners and officers of corporations may be held vicariously liable for an employee’s violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). We conclude that they can. Although under general principles of tort law corporate shareholders and officers usually are not held vicariously liable for an employee’s action, the criteria for the Fair Housing Act is different as liability is specified for those who direct or control or have the right to direct or control the conduct of another with respect to the sale of or provision of brokerage services to the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of BellwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Anna Harris v. Edna Itzhaki Rafael ItzhakiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- John W. Marr and Lucille Marr v. Douglas RifeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1974
- Lester J. Phiffer and Abbie Phiffer v. Proud Parrot Motor Hotel, Inc., a California Corporation, Robert Chow and Chao ChowCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
- United States v. Youritan Construction CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1973
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Robin James, a Married Person in Her Separate Capacity v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Penguin Putnam, Inc., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Holley v. CrankCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- United States v. Quality Built Construction, Inc.District Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2003
- Rose v. Seamless Financial Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 2013
- Scutt v. Family Life Center, Inc.District Court, D. Hawaii · 2021
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.