Barry v. Arrow Pontiac, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 109 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co. (1994), Meshinsky v. Nichols Yacht Sales, Inc. (1988)
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 109 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 Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Grayned v. City of Rockford · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York · Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The act, use or employment by any person of any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretence, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing concealment, suppression or omission in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate, or with the subsequent performance of such person as aforesaid, whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is declared to be an unlawful practice...." N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he term “dealer invoice” has no fixed, ascertainable meaning to the average consumer. ... [T]he cost as advertised is not the ultimate cost of the automobile to the dealer. In the context of the sale of new automobiles, we find that the terms “cost,” “inventory,” and “invoice” are equally amorphous, and hence equally misleading to the public.... [I]t is important that consumers be protected from misleading information.... Hence we conclude that the term “dealer invoice,” ... comes within the scope and intendment of that regulation and the Act and that the advertising is misleading and deceptive to the consuming public. Inasmuch as we find the advertisement to be misleading, we hold that the regulation does not infringe upon [advertiser’s] First Amendment right to engage in commercial speech.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n appellate court will reverse the decision of the administrative agency only if it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or it is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.”
2 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.