Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 812 SW2D 587 - Stacks v. Saunders

Stacks v. Saunders’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Chase Manhattan Bank v. Murphy (In Re Murphy) (1995), Shah v. Racetrac Petroleum Co. (2003)

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 19 state decisions

220199020002010decided

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 Tartera v. Palumbo · Fowler v. Happy Goodman Family · Bearman v. Camatsos · Haynes v. Cumberland Builders, Inc. · Shelley v. Gipson

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

  1. “(1) an intentional misrepresentation with regard to a material fact, (2) knowl- ■ edge of the representation^] falsity— that the- representation was made “knowingly” or “without belief in its truth,” or “recklessly” without regard to its truth or falsity, (3) that the plaintiff reasonably relied on the misrepresentation and suffered damage, and (4) that the misrepresentation relates to an existing or past fact, or, if the claim is based on promissory, fraud, then the misrepresentation must “embody a promise of future action without the present intention to carry out the promise.””
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) an intentional misrepresentation with regard to a material fact; (2) knowledge of the representation’s falsity (i.e., it was made “knowingly” or “without belief in its truth,” or “recklessly” without regard to its truth or falsity); (3) the plaintiff reasonably relied on the misrepresentation and suffered damage; and (4) the misrepresentation relates to an existing or past fact, or, if the claim is based on promissory fraud, the misrepresentation “must embody a promise of future action without the present intention to carry out the promise.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “when an issue has been actually and necessarily determined in a former action between the parties, that determination is conclusive upon them in subsequent litigation.”
    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.