Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 54 U.S. 198 - Sampson Lord and George Jenness v. John Goddard

Sampson Lord and George Jenness v. John Goddard’s Empirical Analysis

54 U.S. 198 · 1851

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
June 2006
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2006 · most notably Claflin v. Commonwealth Insurance (1884), Claflin v. Commonwealth Ins Co of Boston Massachusetts Same

23 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

1201851186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Benton v. Pratt · Allen v. Addington · Young & Otis v. Covell · Williams v. Wood

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

  1. ““The gist of the action is fraud in the defendants and damage to the plaintiff. Fraud means an intention to deceive. If there was not such intention ; if the party honestly stated his opinion, believing at the time that he stated the truth—he is not liable in this form of action, although the representation turned out to be entirely untrue. Since the decision in Haycroft v. Creasy, 2 East, made in 1801, the question has been settled to this effect in England. The Supreme Court of New York held likewise in Young v. Covell, 8 Johns, 23 , 5 Am. Dec. 316 . That court declared it to be well settled that this action could not be sustained without proving actual fraud in the defendant, or an intention to deceive the plaintiff by false representations. The simple fact of making representations which turn out not to be true, unconnected with a fraudulent design, is'not sufficient. This decision was made forty years ago, and stands uncontradicted, so far as we know, in the American courts.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he action [of fraud] cannot be maintained without showing affirmatively knowledge of its falsity.”
    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.