L'Evesque v. Rognrud’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 1991
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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 Swanson v. Domning · Lehman v. Hansord Pontiac Co. Inc. · Lowrey v. Dingmann · Jacobson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. · Tysk v. Griggs
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The rule we follow in this state in establishing a fraudulent representation is stated in 8 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 3818, as follows: 11 "`A person is liable for fraud if he makes a false representation of a past or existing material fact susceptible of knowledge, knowing it to be false, or as of his own knowledge without knowing whether it is true or false, with intention to induce the person to whom it is made to act in reliance upon it, or under such circumstances that such person is justified in acting in reliance upon it, and such person is thereby deceived and induced to act in reliance upon it, to his pecuniary damage.' 12 "2. An unqualified affirmation amounts to an affirmation of one's own knowledge. 13 "3. It is immaterial whether a statement made as of one's own knowledge is made innocently or knowingly. An intent to deceive no longer is necessary. Nor is it necessary to prove that defendants knew the representations were false. 14 "4. Fraudulent intent may be proved by showing that the party knew his statements to be false; or that, having no knowledge of their truth or falsity, he did not believe them to be true; or that, having no knowledge of their truth or falsity, he yet represented them to be true of his own knowledge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“* * * [T]he measure of damages is the difference between the actual value of the property received and the price paid for it, and in addition thereto such other or special damages as were naturally and proximately caused by the fraud prior to its discovery.”
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.