Ludington v. Renick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 8 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A party seeking the rescission of a contract, on the ground of misrepresentations, must establish the same by clear and irrefragable evidence, and if it appears that he has resorted to the proper means of verification, so as to show that he, in fact, relied upon his own inquiries, or if the means of investigations were at hand, and his attention drawn to them, relief will be denied. * * * If the neglect to make reasonable examination would preclude a party from rescinding a contract on the ground of false and fraudulent representations, a fortiori is he precluded when it appears that he did make such examination, and did not rely upon the representations.” ,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Clark v. Reeder · Dotson v. Kirk

2. ““When the means of knowledge are open and at hand, or furnished to the purchaser or his agent, and no effort is made to prevent the party from using them, and especially where the purchaser undertakes examination for himself, he will not be heard to say that he has been deceived to his injury by the'-misrepresentations of the vendor.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith & Benham v. Curran & Hussey · Dotson v. Kirk

3. ““The misrepresentation which will vitiate a contract of sale, and prevent a court of equity from aiding its enforcement, must not only relate to a material matter constituting an inducement to the contract, but it must relate to a matter respecting which the complaining party did not possess at hand the means of knowledge; and it must be a misrepresentation upon which he relied, and by which he was actually misled to his injury. * * * Where the means of knowledge are at hand and equally available to both parties, and the subject of purchase is alike open to. their inspection, if the purchaser does not avail himself of these means and opportunities, he will not be heard to say that he has been deceived by the vendor’s misrepresentations. * * * And the same rule obtains when the complaining party does not rely upon the misrepresentations, but seeks from other quarters means of verification of the statements made, and acts upon the information thus obtained.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Vanderbilt v. Bishop