Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 286 Minn. 270 - Berryman v. Riegert

Berryman v. Riegert’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
6
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 6 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Bortz v. Noon (1999), Gross v. Sussex Inc. (1993)

8 federal appellate · 6 district · 21 state decisions

13019701980199020002010decided

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 Cady v. Bush · Swanson v. Domning · City of Coon Rapids v. Suburban Engineering, Inc. · Hollerman v. F. H. Peavey & Co. · Bakke v. Keller

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

  1. “made a false representation of a past or existing material fact, susceptible of knowledge, knowing it to be false or without knowing whether it was true or false, with the intention of inducing the person to whom it was made to act in reliance upon it or under such circumstances that such person was justified in so acting and was thereby deceived or induced to so act to his damage.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “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. 34 * * * * * 35 "* * * It is not necessary that the statement be recklessly or carelessly made. It makes no difference how it is made if it is made as an affirmation of which defendant has knowledge and it is in fact untrue. The right of recovery in a case of this kind is based on the fact that such statement, being untrue in fact, relied upon by the other party in entering into the transaction, has resulted in the loss to him which he should not be required to bear.”
    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.