Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 310 Mich. 119 - Howard v. Reaume

Howard v. Reaume’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
February 1984
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 1984

8 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

6019441950196019701980decided

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 Boston Piano & Music Co. v. Pontiac Clothing Co. · Hubbard v. Long · Mesh v. Citrin · J. B. Colt Co. v. Cousino · Allison v. Ward

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

  1. ““ ‘Statements promissory in their character that one will do a particular thing in the future are not misrepresentations, but are contractual in their nature, and do not constitute fraud. Hubbard, v. Long, 105 Mich. 442; Macklem v. Fales, 130 Mich. 66 . * * R. C. L. p. 254, lays down the rule in the following language: " • • “ ‘ “ Since a fraud must relate to facts then existing or which have previously existed, the general rule is that fraud cannot be predicated upon statements promissory in their nature and relating to future actions, nor upon the mere failure to perform a promise, or an agreement , to do something at a future time, or to make good subsequent conditions which have been assured. Nor, it is held, is such nonperformance alone even evidence of fraud. Reasons given for this rule are that a mere promise to perform an act in the future is not, in a legal sense, a representation, and a failure to perform it does not change its character. Moreover, a representation, that something will be done in the future, or a promise to do it, from its nature cannot be true or false at the time when it is made. The failure to make it good is merely a • breach of contract, which must be enforced by an' action on the contract, if at all.” ’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “it is elementary that fraud will not be presumed but must be established by a preponderance of the evidence”
    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.