Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 159 Ariz. 377 - Hoffman v. Greenberg

Hoffman v. Greenberg’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse (1997), Kuehn v. Stanley (2004)

28 state decisions

2001988199020002010decided

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 Ultramares Corp. v. Touche · Donnelly Const. Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland · Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Biddulph Oldsmobile · 27 Ariz. App. 793 - Fickett v. Superior Court of Pima County · Maricopa County v. Corporation Commission of Ariz.

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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “One who, in the course of his business, profession or employment, or in any other transaction in which he has a pecuniary interest, supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions, is subject to liability for pecuniary loss caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon the information, if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(a) by the person or one of a limited group of persons for whose benefit and guidance he intends to supply the information or knows that the recipient intends to supply it; and (b) through reliance upon it in a transaction that he intends the information to influence or knows that the recipient so intends or in a substantially similar transaction.”
    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.