Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 656 FSUPP 975 - Aldridge v. Billips

Aldridge v. Billips’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
November 2000
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 2000

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

100198719902000decided

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 United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Pauling v. McElroy · Charbonnages De France v. Smith · Ryan v. Edwards · Nieto v. Pence

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

  1. “civil liability may be imposed where it is proved that a defendant’s statements were made recklessly or carelessly, without knowledge of their truth or falsity, or without reasonable grounds for belief in their truth, especially in a case where (1) the defendant was under a duty to have the knowledge in question, (2) a relation of trust or expert reliance existed, (3) a statement was made to induce a business arrangement, or (4) the knowledge or information in question was within the special province of the defendant. Such conditions being met, it does not matter whether or not the declarant actually believed the statement (or statements) in question to be true, [citations omitted.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Mere reliance on the odometer reading, in the face of other readily ascertainable information from the title and the condition of the truck constitutes a reckless disregard that rises to the level of intent to defraud, as a matter of law.”
    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.