159 So. 2d 893 - Franklin v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 28 state decisions

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

1. “"* * * In the complaint herein reviewed, it is alleged appellee knew if the owner Smith had been informed of appellee's negotiations with appellant concerning a sale of the property, Smith would not have sold for the price of $26,000.00 but would have required payment of the full listed price of $27,400.00, which price appellee was ready, willing, and able to pay, and would have paid if his fraudulent scheme had not been successful. These allegations are sufficient to impose upon appellee a duty to make full disclosure to Smith of appellant's participation in the transaction and the services he had rendered in interesting appellee in the purchase of the property. This the appellee failed to do. `It is fundamental that a suppression of truth may constitute fraud as much as a false suggestion, provided that it is material to the transaction. A distinction must be drawn, however, between passive and active concealment. The former involves mere silence or failure to disclose a fact, while the latter involves a purpose or design. It is only when there is a duty to reveal the fact that mere nondisclosure constitutes fraud.' The conclusion we have reached [complaint states a cause of action] finds support in decisions from other jurisdictions."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 181 So. 2d 575 - John B. Reid & Associates, Inc. v. Jimenez

2. “"The intentional and unjustified interference with the advantageous business relationship existing between others which results in injury constitutes a tort under the law of this State ... * * * * * * "Even though appellant asserts no cause of action against Welton Smith for breach of contract, this in itself does not bar appellant from asserting a cause of action against appellee if the latter's conduct constitutes a tortious interference with appellant's business relationship with Welton Smith. If by his wanton conduct appellee intentionally destroyed the subject matter of the contract existing between appellant and Welton Smith, or otherwise unlawfully rendered the latter's performance under the contract impossible, appellee would be liable in tort to the same extent as if he had unlawfully induced Welton Smith to breach its contract with appellant."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 335 So. 2d 641 - Smith v. Ocean State Bank

3. “"The Chipley case makes it clear that for one to have a cause of action in tort against a wrongdoer who has willfully or maliciously interfered with the injured party's favorable business relationship with another, it is not necessary that the business relationship be founded upon an enforceable contract, or that the interference result in a breach of a contract which would give rise to a cause of action by the injured party against the one defaulting under the contract."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 190 So. 2d 825 - Allen v. Leybourne