Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 696 F. Supp. 2d 44 - Schmidt v. Shah

696 F. Supp. 2d 44 - Schmidt v. Shah’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
August 2018
most recently cited

14 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 702 · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 5 U.S.C. § 8128

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal

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

  1. “If a party's manifestation of assent is induced by either a fraudulent or a material misrepresentation by the other party upon which the recipient is justified in relying, the contract is voidable by the recipient.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A] contract is voidable at the option of the innocent party if that party's assent was induced by a misrepresentation, whether fraudulent or innocent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “may elect to avoid any legal obligations under the contract,”
    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.