Wallo v. Rosenberg’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘Fraud is a willful, malevolent act, directed to perpetrating a wrong to the rights of another. That such an act in a vendor should not be actionable because of the mere negligence or inadvertence of the vendee in preventing the fraud ought to be neither good ethics nor good law. If one voluntarily shuts his eyes when to open them is to see, such a one is guilty of an act of folly (in dealing at arm’s length with another) to his own injury; and the affairs of men could not go on if courts were being called upon to rip up transactions of that sort. * * * But when an element of willful deception leads up to a transaction, the whole situation changes.’ Judd v. Walker, 215 Mo. 312 at pages 337 and 338, 114 S.W. 979 at page 980. Hence, in an action for fraud, it is misleading to say the evidence must show fraud plus absence of negligence. And it is a misnomer to use the word ‘negligence’ in this connection if it is understood as carrying its usual signification, because ‘the law of fraud does not exact of the victim that degree of caution which some other hypothetically prudent person would have used, but only reasonable care in view of his situation. * * * The snares of the fraud-feasor are most often set for the incompetent, the ignorant, and the unwary.’ State ex rel. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Bland, supra [ 324 Mo. 601 , 23 S.W.2d 1029 ]. And see the recent case, Messina v. Greubel, [358] Mo. [439] Sup., 215 S.W.2d 456 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Story v. Nelson

2. ““ * * * It is well settled that there is no particular mode by which an agency must be established. It is necessary only that the credible facts, taken as a yhole, fairly disclose that one party is acting for or representing another by the latter’s authority. The relationship of agency is often to be implied from the words and conduct of the parties to the transaction, and it is not necessary that there be a formal appointment and acceptance thereof. * * * And, if there is agency, then the principal is bound if true representations as to the same matter are within the authority or apparent authority of the agent. See, Hawkins v. Laughlin, Mo.App., 236 S.W.2d 375 ; Restatement of the Law, Agency 2d, Art. 162, p. 384; Mitchum v. Dunlap, 98 Mo. 418 , 11 S.W. 989 ; 2 C.J.S. Agency § 23, p. 1045.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cannon v. Bingman