Rogath v. Er Siebenmann’s Empirical Analysis
129 F.3d 261 · 1997
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Merrill Lynch & Co. v. Allegheny Energy, Inc. (2007), Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (2014)
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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 Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · CBS Inc. v. Ziff-Davis Publishing Co. · Mellon Bank Na v. United Bank Corporation of New York · Union Insurance Society v. William Gluckin & Co. · Galli v. Metz
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where a buyer closes on a contract in the full knowledge and acceptance of facts disclosed by the seller which would constitute a breach of warranty under the terms of the contract, the buyer should be foreclosed from later asserting the breach. In that situation, unless the buyer expressly preserves his rights un der the warranties (as CBS did in Ziff-Davis ), we think the buyer has waived the breach.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In short, where the seller discloses up front the inaccuracy of certain of his warranties, it cannot be said that the buyer— absent the express preservation of his yights—believed he was purchasing the seller’s promise as to the truth of the warranties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.