Everett v. Gilliland’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently June 2005 · most notably Sauter v. St. Michael's College (1962), Krupiak v. Payton (1977)
8 federal appellate · 42 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 Lonergan v. Buford · Stewart v. Potter · 66 Cal. App. 478 - Sullivan v. Helbing · Norment v. Turley · Continental Life Ins. Co. v. Smith
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Generally speaking, however, in the conduct of various transactions between persons involving business dealings, commercial negotiations, or other relationships relating to property, contracts, and miscellaneous rights, there are times and occasions when the law imposes upon a party a duty to speak rather than to remain silent in respect to certain facts within his knowledge and thus to disclose information, in order that the party with whom he is dealing may be placed on an equal footing with him."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Here we have a different question. One of fraud and deceit; a failure to disclose material information, which induced the plaintiff to enter into the contract. The false representation and the contract were distinct and separable. The former was the inducement for the latter, and did not merge in the contract or deed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"[I]f one party to a contract ... has superior knowledge, or knowledge which is not within the fair and reasonable reach of the other party and which he could not discover by the exercise of reasonable diligence, or means of knowledge which are not open to both parties alike, he is under a legal obligation to speak, and his silence constitutes fraud, especially when the other party relies upon him to communicate to him the true state of facts to enable him to judge ... the expediency of the bargain."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Archuleta v. Kopp
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.