Naaf v. Griffitts’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 1993 · most notably Voth v. Chrysler Motor Corporation (1976), Corral v. Rollins Protective Services Co. (1987)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 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 Steele v. J. I. Case Co. · Allen v. Brown · Topeka Mill & Elevator Co. v. Triplett · Adrian v. Elmer · Fox v. R. D. McKay Motor Co.
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.
““The defendant first urges the trial court erred in holding the advertisement and oral statements of the defendant constituted an express warranty rather than expressions of opinion. The defendant relies on what was said in McCullough v. Bales, 125 Kan. 670 , 265 Pac. 1110 , to the effect that a statement as to when a cow will calve is only an expression of opinion. A careful reading of the case, however, reveals that the principle is applicable only in the absence of an express warranty.” (p. 66.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brunner v. Jensen““ ‘The seller’s statements of fact that the heifers had been pregnancy tested coupled with his advertisement and his statements that they would calf in September or October (1965) was a statement of fact that they were pregnant. These statements also amounted to a warranty that the heifers were seven or eight months pregnant. . . (pp. 65, 66.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“No technical or particular words need be used to constitute an express warranty, yet whatever words are used must substantially mean the seller promises or undertakes to insure that certain facts are, or shall be, as he represents them.”
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.