Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 230 Md. 548 - Brack v. Evans

Brack v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
1
states following
September 2007
most recently cited

4 district · 55 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently September 2007 · most notably Martens Chevrolet, Inc. v. Seney (1982), Gross v. Sussex Inc. (1993)

4 district · 55 state decisions

24019631970198019902000decided

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 Piper v. Jenkins · Cumberland Glass Manufacturing Co. v. DeWitt · Virginia Dare Stores, Inc. v. Schuman · Holt v. Kolker · Wear v. Skinner

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

  1. ““As to the fraud count in the amended declaration, we find that the demurrer was properly sustained. In this count, appellant used the words ‘fraudulently misrepresented’ several times, but pleaded no facts from which the existence of fraud could be inferred. As was recognized in Ragan v. Susquehanna Power Co., 157 Md. 521, 526-527 , 146 Atl. 758 (1929), '* * * such words as * * * [fraudulent] are characterizations of the needed. facts rather than allegations of them. Charges of fraud are never regarded in law as sufficient unless accompanied with allegations of the facts and circumstances which constitute the fraud. * * *’.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “recklessly false representations that dividends, rights and privileges incident to the old stock would offset the difference in price of the new stock, operated to conceal their falsity and amounted in themselves to fraud by which he was kept in ignorance of the existence of his cause of action. [Id. at 555, 187 A.2d at 884 (emphasis added).]”
    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.