Compaq Computer Corp. v. Lapray’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 3 district · 40 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The key distinction between this case and a “no-injury” product liability suit is that the Coghlans’ claims are rooted in basic contract law rather than the law of product liability: the Coghlans assert they were promised one thing but were given a different, less valuable thing. The core allegation in a no-injury product liability class action is essentially the same as in a traditional products liability case: the defendant produced or sold a defective product and/or failed to warn of the product’s dangers. The wrongful act in a no-injury products suit is thus the placing of a dangerous/defective product in the stream of commerce. In contrast, the wrongful act alleged by the Coghlans is Wellcraft’s failure to uphold its end of their bargain and to deliver what was promised. The striking feature of a typical no-injury class is that the plaintiffs have either not yet experienced a malfunction because of the alleged defect or have experienced a malfunction but not been harmed by it. Therefore, the plaintiffs in a no-injury products liability case have not suffered any physical harm or out-of-pocket economic loss. Here, the damages sought by the Coghlans are not rooted in the alleged defect of the product as such, but in the fact that they did not receive the benefit of their bargain.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Inman

2. “We do not reach the issue in this case but note that, in varying contexts, our courts of appeals have reached different conclusions on whether parties may recover damages for unmanifested defects. Compare Tracker Marine, L.P. v. Ogle, 108 S.W.3d 349, 362 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (noting that benefit of the bargain damages for un-manifested defects “look[] suspiciously like a claim for fear of future injury to property, which Texas has rejected”) (citation omitted) with Microsoft Corp. v. Manning, 914 S.W.2d 602, 609 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1995, writ dism’d) (recognizing breach of warranty claim for unmanifested defect: “We believe that, if appellees prove that an individual defect exists in all original MS-DOS 6.0 software, it is not necessary for the purchasers to actually suffer a loss of data as a result of that defect for them to suffer damage. They have received less than they bargained for when they acquired the product.”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 177 F. Supp. 3d 1025 - Rosa v. American Water Heater Co.

3. “An order granting or denying certification under Rule 42(b)(3) must state: (i) the elements of each claim or defense asserted in the pleadings; (ii) any issues of law or fact common to the class members; (iii) any issues of law or fact affecting only individual class members; (iv) the issues that will be the object of most of the efforts of the litigants and the court; (v) other available methods of adjudication that exist for the controversy; (vi) why the issues common to the members of the class do or do not predominate over individual issues; (vii) why a class action is or is not superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy; and (viii) if a class is certified, how the class claims and any issues affecting only individual members, raised by the claims or defenses asserted in the pleadings, will be tried in a manageable, time efficient manner.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Texas Parks & Wildlife Department v. Dearing