Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 541 F.3d 719 - Extra Equipamentos E Exportaçáo Ltda. v. Case Corp.

Extra Equipamentos E Exportaçáo Ltda. v. Case Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

541 F.3d 719 · 2008

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
August 2020
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2020 · most notably Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd. (2012), Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd. (2012)

8 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

220200820102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1828 · 28 U.S.C. § 1920

Relies on 131 Ill. 2d 145 - HPI Health Care Services, Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hospital, Inc. · 69 Ill. 2d 320 - Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School · Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel · Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad · 94 Ill. 2d 205 - Hofmann v. Hofmann

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

  1. “"And if it weren't [contractually enforceable], that would not save the day for [the plaintiff]. For its suit is a suit for fraud, and the significance of the no-reliance clause, which does not depend on its enforceability in contract law, is that its language and the circumstances of its negotiation render [the plaintiff's] reliance on [the defendant's] supposed oral misrepresentations unreasonable as a matter of law. The principle behind a no-reliance clause is, as this court explained in Rissman, 213 F.3d at 384 ], `functionally the same as a doctrine long accepted in this circuit: that a person who has received written disclosure of the truth may not claim to rely on contrary oral falsehoods.'" (Emphasis added.) Id. at 726.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “it ensures that both the transaction and any subsequent litigation proceed on the basis of the parties’ writings, which are less subject to the vagaries of memory and the risks of fabrication”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Fees of the court reporter for all or any part of the stenographic transcript.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.