66 Ill. App. 2d 134 - Broberg v. Mann’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 137 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 158 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) it must be a statement of material fact, as opposed to opinion; (2) it must be untrue; (3) the party making the statement must know or believe it to be untrue; (4) the person to whom the statement is made must believe and rely on it, and have a right to do so; (5) it must have been made for the purpose of inducing the other party to act; and (6) the reliance by the person or entity to whom the statement is made must lead to the claimed injury.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sher v. Robin · Orion Refining Corp. v. UOP

2. ““A party in possession of his mental faculties is not justified in relying on representations made when he has ample opportunity to ascertain the truth of the representations before he acts. When he is afforded the opportunity of knowing the truth of the representations he is chargeable with knowledge. If one does not avail himself of the means of knowledge open to him he cannot be heard to say he was deceived by misrepresentations.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Koehler v. Wolverine Insurance · 4 Ill. App. 3d 899 - Yates v. Cummings

3. ““[t]he proof presented is determined largely by the pleadings, the issues, and the theories there made. To permit a recovery upon a theory which was neither pleaded nor presented below, would preclude the adverse party from presenting evidence in rebuttal thereof and from offering other further or attendant theories predicated thereon. Such procedure would violate the concept of fundamental fairness embraced in our Civil Practice Act, wherein the Legislature sought to liberalize the framework within which disputes are presented to the end that they may be determined on their merits upon a specification of the real issues involved.” (Broberg v. Mann (1965), 66 Ill. App. 2d 134 , 213 N.E.2d 89, 91 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 86 Ill. App. 3d 498 - Kaufman & Broad Homes, Inc. v. Allied Homes, Inc.