Gast v. Ebert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 54 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) a false, material representation; (2) the speaker's knowledge of its falsity or his ignorance of its truth; (3) the speaker's intent that it be acted upon by the hearer in a manner reasonably contemplated; (4) the hearer's ignorance of the falsity of the statement; (5) the hearer's reliance on its truth, and the right to rely thereon; and (6) proximate injury.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sanders v. Insurance Co. of North America · Mobley v. Copeland

2. ““appellate court must scrutinize the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion was filed, according to that party all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence ... The burden is on the party moving for summary judgment to demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of fact. A genuine issue of fact exists when there is the slightest doubt about a fact.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Howard v. Missouri State Board of Education · Williams v. Blumer

3. ““In their affidavit, plaintiffs state that they were told by the defendant’s insurer that the agreement which they signed was merely a receipt for moneys received to cover their daughter's medical bills. The counter-affidavit of insurer’s claims representative states that the Gasts were not told that the agreement was merely a receipt for reimbursement of medical expenses. Based on these affidavits, there is a genuine dispute as to whether a representation was made. If the statement was made, and it must be assumed that it was since the record is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the representation was admittedly false because the defendant is attempting to enforce the agreement as a complete and binding release. The representation was clearly material since the plaintiffs’ cause of action hinges on whether the document which they signed was a binding release or merely a receipt.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Austin v. Trotter's Corp.