Topeka Mill & Elevator Co. v. Triplett’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 6 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Flax v. Kansas Turnpike Authority (1979), Young & Cooper, Inc. v. Vestring (1974)
10 federal appellate · 6 district · 21 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 Else v. Freeman · Foote v. Wilson · Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. Nelson · Disney v. Lang · Abmeyer v. First National Bank
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““What is a warranty? In 55 C.J., Sales, § 667, it is defined thus: ‘A warranty is a statement or representation made by the seller of goods, contemporaneously with and as a part of the contract of sale, although collateral to the express object of it, having reference tO' the character, quality, or title of the goods, and by which he promises or undertakes to insure that certain facts are or shall he as he then represents them. A warranty is express when a seller makes an affirmation with respect to the article to be sold, pending the treaty of sale, upon which it is intended that the buyer shall rely in making the purchase. A warranty is implied when the law derives it by implication or inference from the nature of the transaction, or the relative situation or circumstances of the parties.’ (pp. 652, 653.) (Our italics.) * * * * * * “Touching matters of opinion or belief the rule is stated thus in 55 C.J., Sales, § 690: ‘In order for an express warranty to exist, there must be something positive and unequivocal concerning the thing sold, which the vendee relies upon, and which is understood by the parties, as an absolute assertion concerning the thing sold, and not the mere expression of an opinion; representations which merely express the vendor’s opinion, belief, judgment, or estimate do not constitute a warranty.’ (pp. 688, 689.) * * *””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““While, generally speaking, * * * any direct, positive, and unequivocal affirmation or representation of fact with reference to the thing sold may give rise to a warranty, affirmations or representations which merely express the seller’s opinion, belief, judgment, or estimate do not constitute a warranty, no matter how strong the affirmation or representation may be * * *. Under the established and governing rules, dealer’s talk is permissible; and puffing, or praise of the goods by the seller, is no warranty such representations falling within the maxim simplex commendatio non obligat.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n such cases it is ordinarily the province of the jury to determine as a matter of fact whether a warranty was intended.”
1 later decision 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.