Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 122 N.Y. 349 - Brewster v. . Hatch

Brewster v. . Hatch’s Empirical Analysis

1890

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
September 2013
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 6 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2013 · most notably Dickerman v. Northern Trust Co. (1900), Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. Bigelow (1909)

2 federal appellate · 6 district · 19 state decisions

1501890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Getty v. . Devlin

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

  1. ““The question is, Was the relation between these litigants simply that of vendors and vendees of shares to lie issued, or was it one of trust and confidence, binding the defendants to the exercise of good faith and to disclose such information as they possessed affecting the value of the property in which the plaintiffs were induced to purchase an interest. * * * It is conceded and found by the court that the defendants did not disclose the ■amount which they were to pay for the mines. * * * These papers read in the light of the purpose of the defendants, as disclosed by their evidence, seem to have been devices to cover the underlying scheme by which the corporation was to be organized, largely for the benefit of the promoters. but wholly at the risk and expense of the subscribers. We do not think that the inference contended for by the defendants can be justly drawn from th'e meager disclosures which they made in the documents put forth. They knew that they, and they only, absolutely controlled the scheme, and were to determine whether it should be carried out, and, if so, when and how. We think that the plaintiffs were led to believe, and had the right to believe, from the documents and from fhe circumstances that the defendants were acting in the interest of all the investors, and that they knew that the plaintiff so believed.””
    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.