Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 120 MO 188 - Hamlin v. Abell

Hamlin v. Abell’s Empirical Analysis

1894

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
5
states following
May 1972
most recently cited

44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently May 1972 · most notably Stonemets v. Head (1913), Cawston v. Sturgis (1896)

44 state decisions

160189419001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 William Smith v. Guy Richards · Rothschild v. . Mack · Cobb v. . Knapp · Converse v. Blumrich · Marsh v. Falker

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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It seems to be established that an action based upon the deceit or fraudulent representations of another, can not be maintained in the absence of proof that the party making them believed, or had good reason to believe at the time he made them, that they were false, or that he assumed or intended to. convey the impression that he had actual knowledge of their truth, though conscious that he had no such knowledge. When the above facts are proved, the scienter necessary to maintain an action for deceit, founded on fraudulent representations, is established.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Indeed there is no conflict in the opinions in this State on the subject. While it is true that in all cases it is held that the petitions must allege the representations were fraudulent, in all of them it is held that a statement of material facts by one as of his own knowledge, not merely as an opinion or general assertion, about a matter of which he knew nothing whatever, a wilful statement in ignorance of the truth, is the same as a statement of a known falsehood and will constitute a scienter.””
    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.