Court Opinion

ID: 9428766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:24:43.218197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:15.120019
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice Burger,
concurring in the judgment.
I concur in the judgment. However, I do not agree with the reasoning that leads the Court to its conclusion. I agree with the result reached since petitioner permitted itself to be used to further the scheme which caused injury to respondent. At no time did petitioner disavow the challenged conduct of its members who misused their positions in the Society. Under the instructions approved by petitioner and given by the District Court, the jury found that petitioner had “ratified or adopted” the conduct in question.* On that basis the judgment against petitioner should be affirmed but no general rule can appropriately be drawn from the Court’s holding.

The District Court instructed the jury that it could find petitioner liable for the acts of its members only if they acted on behalf of the corporation within the scope of their actual authority or if the corporation thereafter ratified or adopted their acts. Judge Weinstein refused to give the apparent authority instruction proposed by respondent. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals did not rest on the narrow ratification theory underlying the District Court judgment, but instead reached out to decide that petitioner is liable for the acts of its members if those acts are found to be within their apparent authority: the jury never found liability on that the*579ory and the Court of Appeals went “out of bounds.” I regard that aspect of the Court of Appeals’ opinion and that part of the Court’s opinion today as dictum not essential to support the result reached.