732 So. 2d 356 - Pressman v. Wolf’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Hollerbach v. United States · 209 Mich. App. 365 - Huron Tool and Engineering Co. v. Precision Consulting Services, Inc. · 480 So. 2d 625 - Johnson v. Davis · 685 So. 2d 1238 - HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses · 389 So. 2d 995 - Besett v. Basnett
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[s]tatements concerning public record cannot form the basis for a claim of actionable fraud.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Clearly, the question of whether a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation exists in the instant case is one of fact that cannot be resolved based exclusively upon the parties’ pleadings. The complaint states a cause of action which is not negated by the attached exhibit. While there may be some unanswered questions, such as ... whether the purchasers’ reliance was justifiable under the totality of the circumstances, a cause of action has been stated. For these reasons, we hold that the question of whether a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation exists where the putatively misrepresented information is contained in the public record is one of fact that should not be resolved through a motion to dismiss and the use of a bright-line rule of preclusion. In pursuing this case-by-case consideration of the facts, courts should be mindful of the type of information that the purchaser asserts was fraudulently misrepresented. The question, to refer back to this Court’s decision in Besett , is whether the recipient of the misrepresentation is justified in relying upon its truth. For if the recipient knows that it [the statement] is false or its falsity is obvious to him, his reliance is improper, and there can be no cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation. Thus, this factual examination is indeed a consideration of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the type of information, the nature of the communication between the parties, and the relative pos”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“shall be binding upon Buyer or Seller unless included in this Contract”
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.