Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 30 Okla. 428 - Prescott v. Brown

Prescott v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

1911

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
2
states following
June 2009
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently June 2009 · most notably Dusbabek v. Bowers (1934), Yukon Mills & Grain Co. v. Imperial Roller Mills Co. (1912)

25 state decisions

901911192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Solts v. Southwestern Cotton Oil Co. · City of Tacoma v. Tacoma Light & Water Co. · Wickham v. Grant · Clark v. O'Toole · Pierce v. Wilson

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

  1. ““® * * Recent authority has, however, gone far towards settling the matter right in principle. The proposition has now become widely accepted, at law as well as in equity, at least as general doctrine, that a man may act upon a positive representation of fact, notwithstanding the fact that the means of knowledge was specially open] to him, although he had legal notice of the real state of things. It may be improbable that a man with the truth in reach should accept a representation made in regard to it, but the improbability can be no more than a matter of fact.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““* * * Such doctrine may be the law in some states, and possibly obtains to some degree in this state, but the trend of modern decisions is that where a contract is induced by false representations as to material, existent facts, which are made with the intent to deceive and upon which plaintiff relied, and was thereby deceived, it is no defense to an action for rescission or for damages arising- out of deceit, or to avoid a contract, that the party to whom the representations were made might with diligence have discovered their falsity, and that he made no searching inquiry into facts.””
    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.