Weintraub v. Krobatsch’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 14 district · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably State, Dept. of Environ. Protect. v. Ventron Corp. (1983), 94 Wis. 2d 17 - Ollerman v. O'Rourke Co., Inc. (1980)
3 federal appellate · 14 district · 67 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 Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc. · Marini v. Ireland · Ellsworth Dobbs, Inc. v. Johnson · Ruvolo v. American Casualty Co. · 213 Cal. App. 2d 729 - Lingsch v. Savage
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... that our law should be based on current notions of what is `right and just.'”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]here has been a rather amorphous tendency on the part of most courts to find a duty of disclosure in cases where the defendant has special knowledge, or means of knowledge, not open to the plaintiff, and is aware that the plaintiff is acting under a misapprehension as to facts which would be of importance to him, and would probably affect his decision. This tendency, which has gone far to whittle away the “general rule,” has been most manifest in cases involving latent dangerous physical conditions of land or chattels, or defects in the title where the plaintiff has acted upon the reasonable assumption that such conditions do not exist. This has now generally been extended to any facts or conditions basic to the transaction, even though they are of a kind likely to cause only pecuniary loss. Thus when the seller of a house fails to disclose to the buyer the fact that it is infested with termites, or built on improperly compacted filled ground, the modem law is definitely that he will be liable for the pecuniary loss sustained... ... The law appears to be working toward the ultimate conclusion that full disclosure of all material facts must be made whenever elementary fair conduct demands it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the present stage of the law, the decisions show a drawing away from this idea [that nondisclosure is not actionable], and there can be seen an attempt by many courts to reach a just result in so far as possible, but yet maintaining the degree of certainty which the law must have. The statement may often be found that if either party to a contract of sale conceals or suppresses a material fact which he is in good faith bound to disclose then his silence is fraudulent. "The attitude of the courts toward nondisclosure is undergoing a change and . . . it would seem that the object of the law in these cases should be to impose on parties to the transaction a duty to speak whenever justice, equity, and fair dealing demand it. This statement is made only with reference to instances where the party to be charged is an actor in the transaction. This duty to speak does not result from an implied representation by silence, but exists because a refusal to speak constitutes unfair conduct.”
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.