Hall v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently May 2004 · most notably Schmitt v. Jenkins Truck Lines, Inc. (1969), Tralon Corp. v. Cedarapids, Inc. (1997)
3 federal appellate · 31 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 Syester v. Banta · Frederick v. Shorman · Castner v. Wright · 188 F. Supp. 869 - Mitchell v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. · Martin v. Cafer
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) representation, (2) falsity, (3) materiality, (4) scienter, (5) intent to deceive, (6) reliance, (7) resulting injury and damage.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kunz v. Bock · Scheer v. Swanson““Fraud cannot be presumed [in law actions] but must be affirmatively proved by the one who relies on it either for the purpose of defense or attack. It must be established by a preponderance of the evidence by proof that is clear, satisfactory and convincing — such as to overcome the presumption in favor of fair dealing.” Where fraud is alleged in cases of equity, however, the rules are not so strict. “Fraud may there be constructed from circumstances, whereas the law must find it as a fact.[”] * * * “Fraud may arise from facts and circumstances, and an intent to defraud may properly be inferred from circumstances, words, and actions shown in evidence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When one falsely states that to be true which he does not know to be true, for the purpose of inducing another to rely upon it and act upon it, he is just as guilty of actionable fraud in the event he is accepted at his word as if he knew at the time it was not true. One cannot falsely state a fact to be true as of his own knowledge, about which he has no knowledge, for the purpose of inducing another to act, and then, when action follows, escape liability on the mere showing that he did not know the fact to be untrue at the time he made the statement.”
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.