Brodsky v. Hull’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 2008 · most notably Gross v. Sussex Inc. (1993), Nails v. S & R, INC. (1994)
3 federal appellate · 31 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 Kovacs v. Cooper · Robertson v. Parks · Cahill v. Applegarth · Babb v. Bolyard · Cohen v. Numsen
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is a firmly established rule in this State that where it appears by definite boundaries or by words of qualification such as ‘more or less’, in a contract of sale that the statement of the quantity of land is mere estimation and description, and not of the essence of the contract the buyer takes the risk of quantity, and is not entitled to an abatement of price on account of a deficiency, in the absence of fraud. * * *.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Steele v. Goettee · Witmer v. Bloom““In a business transaction, reliance upon a misrepresentation of fact, intentionally misrepresented or otherwise, is justifiable only if the fact misrepresented is material. A fact is material if its existence or nonexistence is a matter to which a reasonable man would attach importance in determining his choice of action in the transaction, or the maker of the misrepresentation knows that its recipient is likely to regard the fact as important although a reasonable man would not so regard it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““If you find that the statement in the contract was not made for the purpose of deceiving the Brodskys, but was made in good faith by the Hulls, that they thought they had an acre of land there and that they were able to convey what the Brodskys saw, when they saw the property twice before the contract was made, and that they offered to convey within the time limited by the contract, then your verdict will be for the defendants.” 196 Md. at 514 , 77 A.2d at 158 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Steele v. Goettee
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.