Anderson v. Knapp’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently November 1999 · most notably Union Bank v. Jones (1980), Armstrong v. Hanover Insurance Company (1972)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 34 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 Berry v. Whitney · New England Road MacHinery Co. v. Calkins · Smirlock v. Potomac Development Corp. · Tower v. Tower · Verchereau v. Jameson
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Fraud is never presumed and must be established by clear and satisfactory evidence, as to which the plaintiff has the burden of proof.” Lyndonville Savings Bank v. Peerless Insurance Co., 126 Vt. 486, 440 , 234 A.2d 340 (1967). “To support an action for fraud or deceit, the representations must be of existing facts relating to the subject matters of the contract, affecting its essence and substance, not matters of judgment or opinion, not of facts that will exist, nor of promises. The representation must be . . . false and at the time known by the seller to be false, or made by the seller as of his own knowledge without his in fact knowing them to be true; they must not be open to the knowledge of or known by the buyer and must be relied upon by him in entering the contract to his damage.” Anderson v. Knapp, 126 Vt. 129, 133 , 225 A.2d 72 (1966).”
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.