Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 73 F.1d 653 - Penn Mut. Life Ins. v. Mechanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co.

Penn Mut. Life Ins. v. Mechanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co.’s Empirical Analysis

73 F. 653 · 1896

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
4
states following
January 2006
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 2006

5 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

20189619001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co. v. Bamford · Penn Mut. Life Ins. v. Mechanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co. · Sampson Lord and George Jenness v. John Goddard · Raley v. Williams · Bullis v. Noble

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

  1. ““Whether actual bad faith must be shown in common-law actions for deceit to justify a recovery has been the subject of much controversy, and it has been finally settled in England by the decision of the house of lords in Derry v. Peek, L. R. 14 App. Cas. 337, that there can be no recovery in such an action whenever the defendant made the statement complained of in the honest belief of its truth, however unreasonable such belief. Such, too, would seem to be the holding of the supreme court of the United States in Lord v. Goddard, 13 How. 198 (see, also, Biggs v. Barry, Fed. Cas. No. 1,402), though, in view of some of its later cases, the question may still be an open one in the latter court. Iron Co. v. Bamford, 150 U. S. 665 , 14 Sup. Ct. 219 . There is much authority in this country supporting the view that an action for deceit may be maintained against one making an untrue statement, though in the honest belief of its truth, if there was no reasonable ground for such belief; or, to put it in another way, if he ought to have known the truth. Cooley, Torts (2d Ed.) 585.””
    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.