480 So. 2d 625 - Johnson v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district · 124 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 202 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Layman v. Binns (1988), Johnson Enterprises of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc. (1998)
10 federal appellate · 1 district · 124 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 213 Cal. App. 2d 729 - Lingsch v. Savage · 76 Ill. App. 3d 638 - Posner v. Davis · 389 So. 2d 995 - Besett v. Basnett · Weintraub v. Krobatsch · 135 So. 2d 876 - Ramel v. Chasebrook Construction Company
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 202 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“where the seller of a home knows of facts materially affecting the value of the property which are not readily observable and are not known to the buyer, the seller is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer.”
29 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) a false statement concerning a material fact; (2) the representor's knowledge that the representation is false; (3) an intention that the representation induce another to act on it; and, (4) consequent injury by the party acting in reliance on the representation.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“may rely on the truth of a representation, even though its falsity could have been ascertained had he made an investigation, unless he knows the representation to be false or its falsity is obvious to him.”
3 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.