Schmidt v. Millhauser’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 48 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “There is nothing in the law or in reason which requires one to deal as though dealing with a liar or scoundrel, or that denies the protection of the law to the trustful who have been victimized by fraud. The principle underlying the caveat emptor rule was more highly regarded in former times than it is today; but it was never any credit to the law to allow one who had defrauded another to defend on the ground that his own word should not have been believed. The modern and more sensible rule is that applied by the Court of Appeals of Maryland in Standard Motor Company v. Peltzer, 147 Md. 509, 510 , 128 A. 451 (1925), where it was held not to be negligence or folly for a buyer to rely on what had been told him.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gross v. Sussex Inc.

2. ““No rule is more firmly established or more generally recognized than that which excludes parol evidence offered to vary, contradict, add to or take from a written instrument. But in our opinion that rule, in cases where the execution of a written instrument has been induced by false or fraudulent statements or promises, does not prevent the introduction of evidence showing such facts in any action on the instrument, because such evidence is not offered to vary or to contradict the instrument but to destroy it, and cases dealing with evidence which, while conceding the validity of such an instrument, nevertheless is offered to contradict or vary it, are parallel to the question.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 156 Md. App. 387 - Cannon v. Cannon

3. “there was no reason why the plaintiffs could not have relied on Mr. Kline’s statements. Piper v. Jenkins, 207 Md. 308 , 113 A.2d 919 [1955]. Mr. Pearlman testified that Service Realty was well regarded as a real estate firm in Baltimore. The alleged defects in the roof were not so obvious or apparent that the purchasers must have known of such defects. Mr. Wilkins, the roofing contractor, testified that people who are not experts would not have observed these defects.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gross v. Sussex Inc.