Cartwright v. Braly’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 106 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently March 1993 · most notably Hall Motor Company v. Furman (1970), Roan v. Smith (1961)
2 federal appellate · 106 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 Munroe v. Pritchett · Williams v. Bedenbaugh · King v. Livingston Mfg. Co. · Jordan & Sons v. Pickett · Tillis v. Smith Sons Lumber 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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ .... Under section 8049 (§ 108, Title 7) the misrepresentation must be of material fact, made to be relied upon as an inducement, and must be relied upon to the injury of the other party. In such case an intent to deceive is not essential.” (Par. Supplied.) Cartwright v. Braly, 218 Ala. 49, 52 , 117 So. 477, 480 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In cases of this sort, where representations have induced action and a sense of security in so doing, there is no legal duty to assume an attitude of suspicion and lookout for fraud until some fact comes to plaintiff's knowledge indicating probable fraud.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.