180 N.J. Super. 45 - Ventura v. Ford Motor Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 8 district · 73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably 115 Ill. 2d 294 - Szajna v. General Motors Corp. (1986), In Re the Cadillac V8-6-4 Class Action (2004)
3 federal appellate · 8 district · 73 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 2301 (Magnuson-Moss Warranty—Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2303 (Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 2308 · 15 U.S.C. § 2310 · 15 U.S.C. § 2311
Relies on Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Insurance Co. of America · 63 Cal. 2d 9 - Seely v. White Motor Co. · Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. · Santor v. a & M KARAGHEUSIAN, INC. · Newmark v. Gimbel's Incorporated
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No supplier may disclaim or modify ... any implied warranty to a consumer with respect to such consumer product if (1) such supplier makes any written warranty to the consumer with respect to such consumer product, or (2) at the time of sale, or within 90 days thereafter, such supplier enters into a service contract with the consumer which applies to such consumer product.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under state law the right to revoke acceptance for defects substantially impairing the value of the product and to receive a refund of the purchase price are rights available to a buyer against a seller in privity. Where the manufacturer gives a warranty to induce the sale it is consistent to allow the same type of remedy as against that manufacturer. Only the privity concept, which is frequently viewed as a relic these days, has interfered with a rescission-type remedy against the manufacturer of goods not purchased directly from the manufacturer. If we focus on the fact that the warranty creates a direct contractual obligation to the buyer, the reason for allowing the same remedy that is available against a direct seller becomes clear.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[A]ny undertaking in writing in connection with the sale by a supplier of a consumer product to refund, repair, replace or take other remedial action with respect to such product in the event that such product fails to meet the specifications set forth in the undertaking . . . .””
3 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.