Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 377 A2D 57 - Bennett v. Kiggins

Bennett v. Kiggins’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

114
cited by 114 later decisions
2
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 54 district · 54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Nader v. De Toledano (1979), Hercules & Co. v. Shama Restaurant Corp. (1989)

4 federal appellate · 54 district · 54 state decisions

35019771980199020002010decided

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 Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Laskey Bros. of West Virginia, Inc. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. · Channel Master Corp. v. Aluminium Limited Sales, Inc. · Presbyterian Church in the United States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church · Dewey v. Clark

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

  1. “(1) a false representation, (2) concerning a material fact, (3) made with knowledge of its falsity, (4) with the intent to deceive, and (5) upon which reliance is placed.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “When a person positively states that something is to be done or is to occur, when he knows the contrary to be true, the statement will support an action in fraud. On the other hand, a prophecy or prediction of something which it is merely hoped or expected will occur in the future is not actionable upon its nonoccurrence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “promissory representation, or a representation as to future events asserted in a common law fraud action, should only be considered a misrepresentation of fact where the evidence shows that the promise was made without the intent to perform, or that the promisor had knowledge that the events would not occur.”
    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.