Clark v. Olson’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Colgan v. Washington Realty Co. (1994), Business Men's Assurance Co. of America v. Graham (1994)
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 39 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 Packard Norfolk, Inc. v. Miller · Hamilton v. Linn · Ackmann v. Keeney-Toelle Real Estate Company · Detling v. Edelbrock · Lowther v. Hays
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a representation; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the speaker’s knowledge of the falsity or his ignorance of the truth; (5) the speaker’s intent that his representation should be acted upon by the hearer and in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the hearer’s ignorance of the falsity of the representation; (7) the hearer’s reliance on the truth of the representation; (8) the hearer’s right to rely thereon; (9) the hearer’s consequent and proximately caused injury.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Assuming, without deciding, that plaintiffs’ petition did not plead fraud with sufficient particularity, this portion of the petition would have properly been subject to a motion for a more definite statement as authorized by Rule 55.27(d). By fading to make such a motion, defendants are deemed, pursuant to Rule 55.27(f), to have waived any objection as to the particularity of the averments of fraud.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[E]xpressions of opinion are insufficient to authorize a recovery for fraudulent misrepresentation ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.