Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 41 FLA 241 - Watson v. Jones

Watson v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

1899

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
8
states following
December 1998
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently December 1998 · most notably Gagne v. Bertran (1954), Martens Chevrolet, Inc. v. Seney (1982)

5 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

8018991900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Shippen v. Bowen · Chatham Furnace Co. v. Moffatt · Munroe v. Pritchett · Osterberg v. Union Trust Co. · Jordan & Sons v. Pickett

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

  1. “(1) a misrepresentation of material fact. 16 (2) [a] knowledge of the representor of the misrepresentation, or, [b] representations made by the representator without knowledge as to either truth or falsity, or, [c] representations made under circumstances in which the representor ought to have known, if he did not know, of the falsity thereof, 17 (3) an intention that the representation induce another to act on it, and 18 (4) resulting injury to the party acting in justifiable reliance on the representation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “when it is shown that the statement was material and false, and that the defendant's situation or means of knowledge were such as to make it incumbent upon him as a matter of duty to know whether the statement was true or false, the conclusion is almost irresistible that he did know that which his duty required him to know.”
    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.