Groseth v. Ness’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently January 2012 · most notably Hazen v. Municipality of Anchorage (1986), Ferrell v. Baxter (1971)
33 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 Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal · Nesbitt v. Erie Coach Co. · Bergeron v. Mansour · Rex v. Warner · Mitchell Ex Rel. Mitchell v. Knight
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Establishment of estoppel generally requires the party seeking to assert it to show "that the other party made some misrepresentation, or false statement, or acted fraudulently, and that he reasonably relied on such acts or representations . .. and due to such reliance did not institute suit timely." Although "there can be circumstances where an inaction or silence combined with acts or representations can give rise to an appropriate situation calling for the application of the estoppel doctrine," ... a plaintiff generally cannot evoke estoppel unless he has exercised due diligence in attempting to uncover the concealed facts.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[TJhere can be circumstances where inaction or silence combined with acts or representations can give rise to an appropriate situation calling for the application of the [equitable] estoppel doctrine. 12”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Of particular significance is the fact that the record is devoid of any evidence that appellant relied upon any false or fraudulent representation or conduct on [defendant’s agent’s] part, and by virtue of such reliance refrained from obtaining the services of an attorney and from instituting timely suit. In short, the proof developed by appellant did not show that he was led to believe that there would be an equitable settlement of his claim, and because of such relief, resulting from [the agent’s] representations and conduct, was ‘lulled’ beyond the statute of limitations.”
2 later decisions 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.