Chedick v. Nash’s Empirical Analysis
151 F.3d 1077 · 1998
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 18 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Swanks v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (1999), 932 F. Supp. 2d 114 - Busby v. Capital One, N.A. (2013)
13 federal appellate · 18 district ·
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on Singleton v. Wulff · United States v. Hougham · Joy v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. · William G. McBride v. Merrell Dow and Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an Ohio Corporation · Shear v. National Rifle Ass'n of America
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the defendant made a false representation; (2) in reference to a material fact; (3) with knowledge of its falsity; (4) with the intent to deceive the plaintiff; (5) the plaintiff acted in reasonable reliance on that representation; (6) which consequently resulted in provable damages.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Because [plaintiff] made this argument for the first time in her reply brief, it is forfeited.”
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.