Wood v. Wack’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

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

1. ““As a generalization from the authorities, the various conditions of fact and circumstance with respect to the question how far a party is justified in relying upon the representation made to him may be reduced to the four following cases, in the first three of which the party is not, while in the fourth he is, justified in relying upon the statements which are offered as inducements for him to enter upon certain conduct: (1) When, before entering into the contract or other transaction, he actually resorts to the proper means of ascertaining the truth and verifying the statement. (2) When, having the opportunity to make such examination, he is charged with the knowledge which he necessarily would have obtained if he had prosecuted it with diligence. (3) When the representation is concerning generalities equally within the knowledge or the means of acquiring knowledge possessed by both parties. (4) But when the representation is concerning facts of which the party making it has, or is supposed to have knowledge, and the other party has ho such advantage, and the circumstances are not those described in the first or second case, then it will be presumed that he relied upon this statement; he is justified in doing so.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Welsh v. Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.

2. ““It is a fundamental principle that a man is bound to use ordinary care and diligence to guard against fraud and imposition, and that, if he fails to do so, he can not obtain relief from the courts. Codfelter v. Hulett, 72 Ind. 137, 144 , and cases cited. It appears from the averments of the answer that the relation of appellant and appellee were not such as to justify the -existence of trust and confidence. Appellee was an intelligent man— a man of affairs. It is not alleged that the agreement in question was not read to him, nor that he did not have an opportunity of reading it, before affixing his signature thereto. He had had no business, and no previous acquaintance, with appellant. The means of information as to the nature and contents of the agreement were within his im mediate reach, and he neglected to avail himself of them, when it was clearly his duty to do so. To hold that, under the circumstances, he was excused from so doing, would be dangerous precedent.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Welsh v. Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.