Fox v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
10 district · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably K-B Trucking Company v. Riss International Corporation (1985), Nordstrom v. Miller (1980)
10 district · 54 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 Speed v. Hollingsworth · State Highway Commission v. Lee · In Re Estate of Shirk · Short v. Sunflower Plastic Pipe, Inc. · Walker v. Fleming Motor Co.
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(1) The burden of proving fraud is by a preponderance of the evidence; this is a matter of quantum. (2) The character of the evidence required is ‘clear and convincing;’ this is a matter of quality. (3) By ‘clear and convincing evidence’ it is meant that the witnesses shall be found to be credible, and that the facts to which they testify are narrated exactly and in due order. (4) The trial court is presumed to have applied the correct standard in the absence of a showing to the contrary. (5) Such a ‘showing to the contrary’ is made if the record discloses no evidence which could be characterized as clear and convincing; if there is substantial competent evidence of the requisite quality to uphold the findings they will be sustained. (6) In making such a determination this court considers only the evidence of the successful party.” (p. 579.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The meaning of such phrases as `clear and convincing proof' or `by evidence that is clear, convincing and satisfactory' has plagued this and other courts for many years. The phrases are used largely in cases involving fraud, oral contracts with decedents, actions to reform or set aside deeds or prove lost deeds, and the like, where for one reason or another it is felt that a `mere preponderance' of the evidence is insufficient."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n a damage action by a purchaser for fraud in inducing the purchase, the measure of damages is the difference between the actual value of the property at the time of the sale and the value it would have had if the representations had been true.... 'A defrauded vendee is entitled to compensation for the contract he thought he was making and any advantage he would have obtained thereunder.'”
2 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.