Yeoman v. Sherry’s Empirical Analysis
1935
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 1991
7 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Crandall v. Parks · Johnson v. Visher · Johnson v. Phenix Ins. Co. of Brooklyn · 132 Cal. App. 708 - Reton v. J. D. Millar Realty Co. · 59 Cal. App. 512 - Merker v. Cross
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is settled also that a misrepresentation of value may be a misrepresentation of a matter of fact, and not the mere opinion of a broker. In the case of Reton v. J. D. Millar Realty Co., 132 Cal. App. 708 , at page 711, [ 23 P. 2d 419,420 ], the court says: ‘Appellant contends that the representations as to value were merely matters of opinion, and hence not actionable. 6 It is true that a bare and naked statement as to value is ordinarily deemed the opinion of the party making the representation. [Citation.] On the other hand, such statement may be a positive affirmation of a fact, intended as such by the party making it, and reasonably regarded as such by the party to whom it is made. When it is such, it is like any other representation of fact # * *. * ° ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.