Johnson Building Co. v. River Bluff Development Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 8 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably Commercial Property Investments, Inc. v. Quality Inns International, Inc. (1995), Wessels, Arnold & Henderson v. National Medical Waste, Inc. (1995)
8 federal appellate · 8 district · 14 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 Hill v. Okay Const. Co., Inc. · Vandeputte v. Soderholm · Weise v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. · Clements Auto Company v. The Service Bureau Corporation · Barr/Nelson, Inc. v. Tonto's, Inc.
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) There must be a representation. (2) That representation must be false. (3) It must have to do with a past or present fact. (4) That fact must be material. (5) It must be susceptible of knowledge. (6) The representer must know it to be false or, in the alternative, must assert it as of his own knowledge without knowing whether it is true or false. (7) The representer must intend to have the other person induced to act or justified in acting upon it. (8) That person must be so induced to act or so justified in acting. (9) That person’s action must be in reliance upon the representation. (10) That person must suffer damage. (11) That damage must be attributable to the misrepresentation, that is, the statement must be the proximate cause of the injury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The parol evidence rule is inapplicable to exclude evidence of fraudulent oral representations by one party which induce another to enter into a written contract, (citations omitted) * * * Evidence of fraudulent representations is not admitted to vary the terms of a contract but to establish that, because of such fraudulent representations, no enforceable contract was made. If such evidence was excluded, a party to a contract could seldom if ever, succeed on a claim of fraud.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fronning v. Blume“"When a promise is not in plain contradiction of a contract or, if contradictory, when it is accompanied by misrepresentations of other material facts in addition to the contradictory intent, the question of reasonable reliance is one for the trier of fact.””
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.