Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 227 Md. 47 - Levin v. Singer

Levin v. Singer’s Empirical Analysis

1961

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
March 2014
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 15 district · 54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2014 · most notably Brown III v. Felsen (1979), Gross v. Sussex Inc. (1993)

12 federal appellate · 15 district · 54 state decisions

300196119701980199020002010decided

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 Williams v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · Boynton v. Ball · Strang v. Bradner · Appel v. Hupfield · Fegeas v. Sherrill

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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “intentional and effective the hiding of a material fact with the attained object of creating or continuing a false impression as to that fact.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Ordinarily fraud cannot be predicated on statements which are promissory in their nature, and therefore an action for deceit will not lie for the unfulfillment of promises or the failure of future events to materialize as predicted. Failure to fulfill a promise is merely a breach of contract, which must be enforced, if at all, by an action ex contractu.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “We think the authorities cited express the better rule and therefore hold that it was not error for the trial judge to permit the appellee to offer proof, by evidence extrinsic to the record of the judgment obtained by appellee on the note, that the debt which the note represented was created by the false representations of the appellant.”
    1 later decision 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.