Pace v. Parrish’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 9 district · 62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably Meier v. Commissioner (1988), Crookston v. Fire Insurance Exchange (1991)
14 federal appellate · 9 district · 62 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 Stuck v. Delta Land & Water Co. · Taylor v. Moore · Hecht v. Metzler · Anderson v. Laws · Kinnear v. Prows
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) That a representation was made; (2) concerning a presently existing material fact; (3) which was false; (4) which the representor either (a) knew to be false, or (b) made recklessly, knowing that he [or she] had insufficient knowledge upon which to base such representation; (5) for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it; (6) that the other party, acting reasonably and in ignorance of its falsity; (7) did in fact rely upon it; (8) and was thereby induced to act; (9) to his [or her] injury and damage.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage“Defendants suggest that the plaintiffs had no right to rely on the representations made by defendant, but were bound to make more careful and complete inquiry concerning such matters. It is strange and inconsistent for defendants to urge the necessity for the plaintiffs to cross-examine Mr. Parrish and to doubt and verify his representations. As to reliance in such situations, see 5 Williston on Contracts, Rev.Ed., Sec. 1512. The full measure of the plaintiffs’ duty was to use reasonable care and observation in connection with these representations. Having done so, it does not lie in defendant’s mouth to say that they were too gullible and shouldn’t have believed him. The facts as found by the jury satisfy the requisites for recovery on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentation as hereinabove set out.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'for fraud is the difference between [the] value of property purchased and [the] value it would have had if representations were true.’”
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.