872 So. 2d 790 - Pulliam v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 639 So. 2d 921 - Ferguson v. Ferguson · 437 So. 2d 1003 - Albright v. Albright · 451 So. 2d 219 - Stringfellow v. Stringfellow · Sandlin v. Sandlin · 549 So. 2d 1309 - Bowers Window & Door Co. v. Dearman
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The elements of fraud, which must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, include: 1) a representation; 2) its falsity; 3) its materiality; 4) the speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; 5) his intent that it should be acted upon by the person and in the manner reasonably contemplated; 6) the hearer's ignorance of its falsity; 7) his reliance on its truth; 8) his right to rely thereon; and 9) his consequent and proximate injury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Trim v. Trim · Roberts v. Lopez“The standard of review by this Court in domestic relations cases is well-settled. Chancellors are vested with broad discretion, and this Court will not disturb the chancellor's findings unless the court was manifestly wrong, the court abused its discretion, or the court applied an erroneous legal standard. However, we will not hesitate to reverse should we find that a chancery court was manifestly wrong, abused its discretion, or applied an erroneous legal standard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Trim v. Trim
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.