Sabo v. Delman’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 15 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 404 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Perma Research & Development Co. v. Singer Co. (1969), Stewart v. Jackson & Nash (1992)
62 federal appellate · 15 district · 10 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 Adams v. . Gillig · Mitchill v. Lath · Fogelson v. Rackfay Construction Co. · Ochs v. . Woods · Bridger v. . Goldsmith
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 404 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f a promise was actually made with a preconceived and undisclosed intention of not performing it, it constitutes a misrepresentation of `a material existing fact' upon which an action for rescission may be predicated.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he allegations in the complaint describe a case where a defendant has fraudulently and positively as with personal knowledge stated that something was to be done when he knew all the time it was not to be done and that his representations were false. It is not a case of prophecy and prediction of something which it is merely hoped or expected will occur in the future, but a specific affirmation of an arrangement under which something is to occur, when the party making the affirmation knows perfectly well that no such thing is to occur. Such statements and representations when false are actionable.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]here is no authority that we are required to follow in support of the proposition that a party who has perpetrated a fraud upon his neighbor may nevertheless contract with him, in the very instrument by means of which it was perpetrated, for immunity against its consequences, close his mouth from complaining of it, and bind him never to seek redress. Public policy and morality are both ignored if such an agreement can be given effect in a court of justice. The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction would no longer be the rule, but the exception. It could be applied then only in such case as the guilty party neglected to protect himself from his fraud by means of such a stipulation. Such a principle would in a short time break down every barrier which the law has erected against fraudulent dealing.”
3 later decisions 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.