156 Ga. App. 82 - Zeeman v. Black’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably 105 Wash. 2d 778 - Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Insurance (1986), Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara v. Indian Harbor Properties, Inc. (1983)
10 federal appellate · 60 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914)
Relies on Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour · Estes v. Odom · 130 Ga. App. 407 - Lincoln Land Co. v. Palfery · 144 Ga. App. 813 - Attaway v. Tom's Auto Sales, Inc. · 145 Ga. App. 8 - State v. Meredith Chevrolet, Inc.
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“since the Act contemplates notice of the deception relied upon as the prerequisite to a suit for recovery of damages resulting from that deception, we construe [OCGA § 10-1-399] as incorporating the “reliance” element of the common law tort of misrepresentation into the causation element of an individual claim under the FBPA. . . . Therefore, under [OCGA § 10-1-399] when the alleged violation of the FBPA is a misrepresentation, the claimant is not entitled to recover if he had an equal and ample opportunity to ascertain the truth but failed to exercise proper diligence to do so.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Also that [O.C.G.A. § 10-1-399] provides for equitable injunctive relief and for recovery of treble damages for intentional violations is further evidence that the legislature intended that section to serve as an aid in enforcing the underlying public protection policy of the statute by enlisting the litigative assistance of those individual members of the consuming public damaged by unfair or deceptive acts or practices and not as the basis for a new private remedy for individuals who are damaged by acts or practices which have no potential for impact on the general consuming public. In this remedial aspect the private remedy afforded by the FBPA is analogous to the federal anti-trust law, 15 U.S.C. § 15 , which authorizes similar suits by individuals designed to further the broad public interest transcending the private objectives of the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“if the deceptive or unfair act or practice had or has no potential for harm to the general consuming public, the allegedly wrongful act of the defendant was not made in the context of the consumer marketplace. Unless it can be said that the defendant’s actions had or has potential harm for the consumer public the act or practice cannot be said to have “impact” on the consumer marketplace and any “act or practice which is outside that context, no matter how unfair or deceptive, is not directly regulated by the FBPA.” [Cit.]”
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.