Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 160 Ga. App. 591 - Lively v. Garnick

160 Ga. App. 591 - Lively v. Garnick’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably American Viking Contractors, Inc. v. Scribner Equipment Co. (1984), Higginbottom v. Thiele Kaolin Co. (1983)

6 federal appellate · 36 state decisions

2201981199020002010decided

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 Wilhite v. Mays · 140 Ga. App. 816 - Wilhite v. Mays · Jackson v. Brown · Hayes v. Hallmark Apartments · Beach v. Fleming

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

  1. “Fraud unlike negligence, breach of warranty or breach of contract, is premised upon the `actual moral guilt' of the defrauding party. Mere concealment of a material fact, unless done in such a manner as to deceive and mislead, will not support an action. In all cases of deceit, knowledge of the falsehood constitutes an essential element. The element of intention to deceive is as necessary in an action based on concealment as one based on wilful misrepresentation. An action for fraud and deceit must be based upon a representation or concealment which was made with the intention and purpose of deceiving the opposite party, and for the purpose of injuring him.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The evidence in the instant case reveals that in spite of the fact that the house had not been completed, the [buyer was] at least as anxious as [the contractor] to close the sale. All parties agreed that [$365,000] would not be disbursed to [the contractor] until the house was completed in accordance with the special stipulations of the contract.... If the evidence shows anything, it shows a mere breach of contract. There is no evidence that [the contractor] did not intend to comply with the terms of the special stipulations at the time the promises were made at the closing.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “It is clear, however, that in a fraudulent concealment action the allegedly defrauded party must prove that the alleged defrauder had actual, not merely constructive, knowledge of the fact concealed.... An assertion that one `should have known' of a defect alleges at most a constructive knowledge.”
    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.