Wren v. Moncure’s Empirical Analysis
1897
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 1989
2 federal appellate · 11 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
Relies on Gordon v. Butler · Wilson v. Carpenter's Adm'r · Parker v. Moulton · Bosher v. R. & H. Land Co. · Watkins v. West Wytheville Land & Improvement 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The representation made in this case by the vendors, as established by the testimony, being simply the expression of opinion and not the representation of a material fact, it constitutes no ground for the rescission of the contract. The vendees were not entitled to rely on it and omit to make the inquiries and examination which a prudent man ought to make, for the law does not hold one responsible for words of commendation of his property, unless the parties deal on unequal terms, and one has means of information that are not equally open to the other, or he has used means or practiced some artifice to prevent the other from making inquiry or examining the property. Grim v. Byrd, supra ( 32 Gratt. 300 ); Lake v. Tyree, supra ( 90 Va. 719 ); Parker v. Moulton, 114 Mass. 99 ; Gordon v. Butler, 105 U. S. 553 ; and Wald’s Pollock on Contracts, 523-4, and cases cited in note. “The land in question was equally open to the examination of the purchasers as of the owners, and the evidence fails to disclose that the latter used any means or resorted to any artifice to avert inquiry, or to prevent the former from examining the land. On the contrary, there is an entire absence of evidence of any purpose or desire on the part of the owners to conceal from the purchasers the character of the land. All were earnestly invited before the contract of sale was executed to visit and inspect the property, and those who came were freely driven through it, without giving utterance to any dissatisf”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.