Johnson v. Caldwell’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2011
6 federal appellate · 5 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
Relies on Wingate v. Render · Ely Walker Dry Goods Co. v. Smith · Cooper v. Gibson · Pevehouse v. Adams · Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Penix
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The mere fact that fraud is claimed will not justify the submission of that issue unless facts are produced from which an trresistible deduction of fraud reasonably arises. Fraud may not be presumed by the jury from circumstances; it must arise as does any other issue of fact from a preponderance of all the evidence. Deceit, fraud, and fraudulent intent arise from acts and conduct inharmonious with good faith and must emanate from clear and convincing proof."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Instruction No. 1. “You are instructed that in this case the plaintiff seeks to recover a judgment because of alleged fraud by the defendant, G. C. McBee. You are further instructed that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the alleged fraud by a fair preponderance of the evidence. You are further instructed that to constitute actionable fraud it must be proved: “ (1) That the defendant made a material representation; “(2) That it was false; “(3) That when the defendant made it he either knew it was false, or made it recklessly, without any knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion; “(4) That he made it with the intention that it should be acted upon by plaintiff; “(5) That plaintiff acted in reliance on it; “(6) That plaintiff thereby suffered injury; and “(7) That all of these facts must be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, and all of them must be found to exist, and the absence of any of them is fatal to the plaintiffs right to recover a judgment. “Instruction No. 2. “You are instructed that in this case the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the allegations made in his petition as summarized above by a fair preponderance of the evidence. In this connection you are further instructed that fraud is never presumed, but must be established by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence. “Instruction No. 3. “In this connection you are instructed that the plaintiff in this case claims that he has been defrauded by the acts and conduct of the defendant,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McBee v. Dennis
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.