Griesa v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 state decisions

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

1. ““However dogmatically the rule is stated and reiterated in the decisions and textbooks that parol evidence is inadmissible to show the oral representations, negotiations and statements of contracting parties, leading up to their bargain, when later their contract is reduced to writing and signed by them, an invariable qualification of that rule is usually appended making an exception in all cases of fraud pleaded and proved.” (p. 339.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Boxer v. Watchorn Oil & Gas Co. · Mills v. Purdy

2. ““While the rule is that statements of value or market price of familiar commercial commodities, like grain, wool and the like, are ordinarily mere matters of opinion (Graffenstein v. Epstein & Co., 23 Kan. 443 ; Burns v. Mahannah, 39 Kan. 87 , 17 Pac. 319 ; 12 R. C. L. 281), yet the rule is otherwise where the value or market price is difficult of ascertainment, and where the vendor is familiar with such value and the vendee is not. Where an unfamiliar kind of property is involved and the market value is not easily ascertained, representations as to its market value are usually considered statements of fact and not of opinion. And where a vendor knowingly and grossly misrepresents the true market value of such a commodity, and the purchaser is entirely ignorant of it' and is induced to buy in reliance upon the vendor’s false statements as to its market value, the vendee may have a cause of action or a defense based thereon. (Citing cases.) .... The rule that positive statements of value are mere ‘puffing,’ or the lying talk in which dealers may indulge with impunity in their transactions with ignorant persons, is one which is subject to criticism and is not universally followed. At all events, courts should steadily set their faces against the extension of its application. In a plain case of cheating, swindling or gross duplicity the rule of caveat emptor should have no application. (Nairn v. Ewalt, 51 Kan. 355 , 32 Pac. 1110 .)” (pp. 340, 341.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fourth National Bank v. Webb

3. “. . From the time of Cicero until now it has been the law that fraud vitiates contracts — vitiates everything it touches, and through its perpetration no one acquires a right of action. . . .” (p. 342.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Edwards v. Phillips Petroleum Co.