Shappirio v. Goldberg’s Empirical Analysis
192 U.S. 232 · 1904
Citation profile
146 federal appellate · 30 district · 126 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 351 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2016 · most notably Hollerbach v. United States (1914), Myzel v. Fields (1967)
146 federal appellate · 30 district · 126 state decisions — followed in 19 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on William Shields v. Robert R Barrow · Sturm v. Boker · Seitz v. Brewers' Refrigerating Machine Co. · United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co. · Davis v. Schwartz
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 351 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the means of knowledge are open and at hand, or furnished to the purchaser or his agent, and no effort is made to prevent the party from using them, and especially where the purchaser undertakes examination for himself, he will not be heard to say that he has been deceived to his injury by the misrepresentations of the vendor.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is well settled by repeated decisions of this eourt that, where'a party desires to rescind upon the ground of misrepresentation or fraud, he must upon the discovery of the fraud announce his purpose and adhere to it. If he continues to treat the property as his own, the right of rescission is gone, and the party will be held bound by the contract. Grymes v. Sanders, 93 U. S. 55 [ 23 L. Ed. 798 ]; McLean v. Clapp, 141 U. S. 429 [ 12 S. Ct. 29 , 35 L. Ed. 804 ]. In other words, when a party discovers that he has been deceived in a transaction of this character, he may resort to an action at law to recover damages, or he may have the transaction set aside in which he has been wronged by the rescission of the contract. If he choose the latter remedy, he must act promptly, ‘announce his purpose, and adhere to it,’ and not by acts of ownership continue to assert right and title over the property as though it belonged to him. * * * But he cannot, after such discovery, treat the property as his own and exercise acts of ownership over it, which show an election to regard the same as still his, and at the same time preserve his right to' rescission.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.