Dold v. Sherow’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently July 2003 · most notably Osgood v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (1988), Spencer v. Aetna Life & Casualty Insurance (1980)
2 federal appellate · 5 district · 30 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 Lynx, Inc. v. Ordnance Products, Inc. · Kohlenberger, Inc. v. Tyson's Foods, Inc. · Apperson v. Security State Bank · LA Green Seed Company of Arkansas v. Williams · Evangelist v. Bellern Research Corporation
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.
“(a) the buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy; . . .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is undisputed in the instant case that plaintiff’s petition failed to allege that notice was given; nor was there a general allegation in the petition of fulfillment of all conditions precedent. In fact, the record supports the conclusion that there-was no evidence at trial by either plaintiff or defendant indicating whether notice was given pursuant to 84-2-607(3). “Based on these facts the issue before us boils down to whether plaintiff is barred from any remedy by failure to plead and prove notice. The official UCC comment to 84-2-607(3) [Comment No. 4] notes that ‘the rule of requiring notification is designed to defeat commercial bad faith, not to deprive a good faith consumer of his remedy.’ By receiving timely notice of an alleged breach the seller is afforded an opportunity to prepare his defenses and govern his conduct accordingly. (Davidson v. Wee, 93 Ariz. 191 , 379 P.2d 744 [1963].) “Plaintiff purchased the cows from defendant on January 2, 1973. On January 10, 1973, three of the cows were inspected by a veterinarian and found to be older than represented and without calves. The entire herd was inspected around March 1, 1973, whereupon the extent of the breach was fully discovered by plaintiff. Suit was not brought until eight months later, on November 7, 1973. “We have established that the statutory requirement of notice under 84-2-607(3) is in the nature of a condition precedent which must be pled and proved by the party claiming the breach of warranty. Unde”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Stewart
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.