Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 95 F.3d 544 - Carr v. Cigna Securities, Inc.

Carr v. Cigna Securities, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

95 F.3d 544 · 1996

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
2
states following
November 2015
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably United States v. Paladino (2005), Hentosh v. Herman M. Finch University of Health Sciences/The Chicago Medical School (1999)

27 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

270199620002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1367

Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Wright v. Associated Insurance Companies Inc. · Zobrist v. Coal-X, Inc. · Williams v. Commissioner · Maksym v. Loesch

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

  1. “If a literate, competent adult is given a document that in readable and comprehensible prose says X (X might be, “this is a risky investment”), and the person who hands it to him tells him, orally, not-X (“this is a safe investment”), our literate, competent adult cannot maintain an action for fraud against the is suer of the document. This principle is necessary to provide sellers of goods and services, including investments, with a safe harbor against groundless, or at least indeterminate, claims of fraud by their customers. Without such a principle, sellers would have no protection against plausible liars and gullible jurors ... If the documents he was given, warning him in capitals and bold face that it was a RISKY investment, do not preclude the suit, it will simply be his word against the seller’s concerning the content of an unrecorded conversation.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[i]f a literate, competent adult is given a document that in readable and comprehensible prose says X . . . and the person who hands it to him tells him, orally, not X . . . our literate competent adult cannot maintain an action for fraud against the issuer of the document.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[n]ot all principals of fiduciaries are competent adults; not all disclaimers are clear; and the relationship involved may involve such a degree of trust invited by and reasonably reposed in the fiduciary as to dispel any duty of self-protection by the principal.”
    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.