199 Mich. App. 519 - Brownell v. Garber’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 state decisions

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.

1. “[W]e conclude that the interest involved in a claim for damages arising out of a fraudulent misrepresentation differs from the interest involved in a case alleging that a professional breached the applicable standard of care. Simply put, fraud is distinct from malpractice. Fraud is no less actionable because it is committed by an attorney with whom the plaintiff has ah attorney-client relationship. If a client attempts to characterize a malpractice claim as a fraud or other type of claim, a court will look through the labels placed on the claim and will make its determination on the basis of the substance and not the form. However, when a complaint alleges not only malpractice but also all the necessary elements of fraud, the statute of limitations governing fraud actions will apply to the fraud count and, if such count is not barred, the plaintiff may proceed on that court [sic] to collect damages proximately caused by the alleged fraud. An attorney’s advice or opinion, if knowingly false, may constitute fraud.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 927 F. Supp. 216 - Carroll v. Jaques · Masloskie v. Century 21 American Real Estate, Inc.

2. “(1) That defendant made a material representation; (2) that it was false; (3) that when he made it he knew that 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 upon it; and (6) that he thereby suffered injury. [ Id., quoting Scott v. Harper Recreation, Inc, 192 MichApp 137, 144; 480 NW2d 270 (1991).]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 219 Mich. App. 1 - Kuebler v. Equitable Life Assurance Society · McCreery v. Seacor

3. “no distinction ... between those who deal with one another at arm's length and those whose relationship is confidential or fiduciary.”). 9 . Cf. People v. Wright, 161 Mich.App. 682 , 411 N.W.2d 826 , 829 n. 4 (1987) (referring to Mich. R. Evid. 404(b), the Michigan Court of Appeals remarked,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wolf v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.