Reynolds v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 state decisions

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

1. “"Normally, the courts will not allow a statement of opinion to be a basis on which to predicate a claim of fraud. However, if there is proof of actual fraudulent intent at the time the representation is made and the person succeeds in the deception and injury results, an action for fraud may be predicated on such a representation, notwithstanding the opinion nature of the representation. Shepherd v. Kendrick, 236 Ala. 289 , 181 So. 782 (1938); see also Army Aviation Center Federal Credit Union v. Poston, 460 So.2d 139 (Ala.1984); Clanton v. Bains Oil Co., 417 So.2d 149 (Ala.1982); Birmingham Broadcasting Co. v. Bell, 259 Ala. 656 , 68 So.2d 314 (1953). "Where the representation of an opinion is involved, a person must prove not only that there was an intent to deceive, but also that his reliance was reasonable. See Bedwell Lumber, Inc. v. T & T Corp., 386 So.2d 413 (Ala.1980). In certain situations a person may reasonably rely on the representation of an opinion. For instance, where the facts are not equally known to both sides, a statement of opinion by the one who knows the facts better, often involves a statement of a material fact that justifies his opinion, Scholz Homes, Inc. v. Hooper, 287 Ala. 628 , 254 So.2d 328 (1971), quoting Kefuss v. Whitley, 220 Mich. 67 , 189 N.W. 76 (1922); therefore, in such a situation, an action for fraud may be predicated on an opinion, depending on whether the reliance on the representation of the opinion is reasonable. Cf. Shepherd v. Ken”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 832 So. 2d 628 - Cooper & Co., Inc. v. Lester · 988 So. 2d 998 - McCutchen Co., Inc. v. Media General, Inc.

2. “This measure essentially gives the person fraudulently induced into the purchase the 'benefit of the bargain.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sanford v. House of Discount Tires · 568 So. 2d 738 - Johnny Spradlin Auto Parts, Inc. v. Cochran

3. “... Whether a fraudulent intent has been proven is a matter peculiarly within the province of the jury, where there is evidence of such an intent. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Borden, 371 So.2d 28 (Ala.1979); Southeastern Properties, Inc. v. Lee, 368 So.2d 288 , on remand, 368 So.2d 289 (Ala.Civ.App. 1979).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 832 So. 2d 628 - Cooper & Co., Inc. v. Lester