830 F. Supp. 486 - Jackson v. Swift-Eckrich’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 2013
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 15B (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1652 (Rules of Decision Act) · 7 U.S.C. § 192 · 7 U.S.C. § 197 · 7 U.S.C. § 209 · 7 U.S.C. § 210 · 7 U.S.C. § 218
Relies on Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson · White v. United States · Stafford v. Wallace · Michigan Canners & Freezers Assn., Inc. v. Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Bd. · Vanderboom v. Sexton
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As to fraud or misrepresentation, mere ignorance of one’s rights does not prevent the running of the statute of limitations or laches, unless such ignorance is due to fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation on the part of those invoking the benefit of the statute ... While an action for fraud must be brought within three years from the date the cause of action accrues, the fraud does suspend the running of the statute of limitations and the suspension remains in effect until the party having the cause of action discovered the fraud or should have discovered it by the exercise of reasonable diligence. (Citations omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This cause of action, which would be described as innocent misrepresentation or non-disclosure in other jurisdictions, exists even though any evil intention or moral wrong is absent. The action may be based on a mistake of fact. The essential element is that a legal or equitable duty has been breached in such a way that the law declares that breach to be fraudulent because of its tendency to deceive others, regardless of the moral guilt or intent of the fraud-feasor.”
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.