Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 974 F.2d 270 - Diduck v. Kaszycki & Sons Contractors, Inc.

Diduck v. Kaszycki & Sons Contractors, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

974 F.2d 270 · 1992

Citation profile

255
cited by 255 later decisions
5
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

64 federal appellate · 13 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 255 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Palmacci v. Umpierrez (1997), In Re: Sharp International Corp (2005)

64 federal appellate · 13 district · 7 state decisions

1370199220002010decided

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 Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon

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

  1. “(1) a defendant `affirmatively assists, helps conceal, or by virtue of failing to act when required to do so enables the fraud to proceed'; and (2) `the actions of the aider/abettor proximately caused the harm on which the primary liability is predicated.'”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he relevant ‘knowledge’ for liability to attach for knowingly participating in a fiduciary’s breach of duty is knowledge as to the primary violator’s status as a fiduciary and knowledge that the primary’s conduct contravenes a fiduciary duty.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “1) a material false representation or omission of an existing fact, 2) made with knowledge of its falsity, 3) with an intent to defraud, and 4) reasonable reliance, 5) that damages plaintiff.”
    3 later decisions 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.