Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 744 SW2D 441 - Heberer v. Shell Oil Co.

Heberer v. Shell Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
1
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 55 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably Usery Gourley (1997), Emerick v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. (1988)

12 federal appellate · 55 state decisions

46019881990200020102020decided

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 Sofka v. Thal · Smith v. Tracy · Salmon Ex Rel. Salmon v. Brookshire · Dolan v. Rabenberg · Empire Gas Corp. v. Small's LP Gas Co.

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 82 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 should be acted upon by the hearer in the manner reasonably contemplated; (4) the hearer's ignorance of the falsity of the representation; (5) the hearer's reliance on its truth; (6) the hearer's right to rely thereon; and (7) the hearer's consequent and proximately caused injury.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[i]t must appear in an appreciable sense that the damage flowed from the fraud as the proximate and not the remote cause, and the damage must be such as is the natural and probable consequence of the fraud.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he purchaser rescinds and returns the property received or where he received nothing of value, and in such case he may properly recover the amount he paid with interest from the date of payment, plus incidental losses and expenses suffered as a result of the seller’s misrepresentations.”
    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.