McDonald v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1905
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 2009 · most notably 27 Cal. 2d 478 - People v. Adamson (1946), 65 Cal. App. 727 - Palladine v. Imperial Valley Farm Lands Assn. (1924)
31 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 Morrison v. Wisconsin Odd Fellows' Mutual Life Insurance · Colonial City Traction Co. v. Kingston City Railroad · Bush v. Sprague · Stoney Creek Woolen Co. v. Smalley · French v. Ryan
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is material to observe that it is often fallaciously assumed that a statement of opinion cannot involve the statement of a fact. * * * If the facts are not equally known to both sides, then a statement of opinion by-the one who knows the facts best involves very often a statement of a material fact, for he impliedly states that he knows facts which justify his opinion.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kefuss v. Whitley · Pound v. Clum““The statement of defendant under consideration is something more than a mere expression of opinion. His statement, coupled with his offer to buy, falsely implied that defendant knew facts which proved the stock to be valuable. The foregoing authorities and sound principle justify our holding such a representation actionable. What defendant said was equivalent to the false statement that he had knowledge of facts which proved said stock to be worth more than par. Had he made that false statement, his liability would be clear. If we hold that he is not liable because he conveyed this thought in guarded language, we point out a way by which unscrupulous men may accomplish fraud without responsibility.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Armstrong v. Rachow
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.