Ruhl v. Mott’s Empirical Analysis
1898
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently March 2003 · most notably 25 Cal. 2d 447 - Neet v. Holmes (1944), 18 Cal. App. 2d 69 - Carpenter v. Hamilton (1936)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 63 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 Bailey v. Fox · Marten v. Paul O. Burns Wine Co. · Bach v. . Tuch · 44 N.J. Eq. 513 - Dennis v. Jones · Delano v. Jacoby
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is true that where one is justified in relying, and in fact does rely, upon false representations, his right of action is not destroyed because means of knowledge were open to him. In such a case, no duty in law is devolved upon him to employ such means of knowledge.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Werline v. Aldred““Equity always views with strictness the business dealings of a man with one who stands in a position of dependence or confidence to him, when that relationship is either voluntarily assumed or is imposed, by operation of law.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Landis v. Wintermute
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.