Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 179 Okla. 369 - Gragg v. Pruitt

Gragg v. Pruitt’s Empirical Analysis

1936

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
October 1954
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently October 1954

16 state decisions

100193619401950decided

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 Antoine Michoud v. Peronne Bernardine Girod · Schock v. Fish · Daniel v. Tolon · Hayden v. Dannenberg · King v. Remington

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

  1. ““A vendor or purchaser is not entitled to rescind the contract because of the other party’s fraud or misrepresentation, unless he has been damaged or prejudiced thereby. But it is not always necessary to show actual pecuniary damages. It is enough for him to show that he has been otherwise prejudiced, as that he has been induced by material false representations to enter into a contract which he would not. have entered into but for such representations.” “The rule that fraud without damages resulting therefrom never gives a right of action in favor of the defrauded party applies to those cases where the injured party is seeking to recover damages from the wrongdoer in an action ex delicto as an indemnity against the injury which he has sustained by reason of the fraud, and has no application to a case where it is sought to cancel an instrument because it was entered into by reason of fraud and misrepresentation. If the false statement related to a material fact, the law implies that the • defrauded party has suffered an injury.” “For a court to uphold and refuse to cancel a contract consummated by fraud and misrepresentation, and thus, as between the deceiver and the deceived, bind the property and character of the latter because it is not apparent that he has suffered pecuniary damages, would certainly be most inequitable.””
    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.