Pierce v. Plogger’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Shevel's, Inc. v. Southeastern Associates, Inc. (1984), W.J. Schafer Associates, Inc. v. Cordant, Inc. (1997)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 33 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 High Knob, Inc. v. Allen · Brewer v. First National Bank · DUNLANY FOODS, INC. v. Ayers · Main-Atlantic Corp. v. Francis I. duPont & Co. · Hooff v. Paine
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Another exception to the rule, which is similar in many respects to the partial integration doctrine, is the collateral contract doctrine. Under this doctrine, the parol evidence rule does not exclude parol proof of a prior or contemporaneous oral agreement that is independent of, collateral to and not inconsistent with the written contract, and which would not ordinarily be expected to be embodied in the writing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The evidence reveals that, before contracting with Plogger, Pierce inspected the basement during a dry period. After signing the contract, but before closing, he discovered a cracked basement wall and a severe leakage. Plogger agreed, but failed, to correct the defects before closing. On condition that Plogger give the express oral and written warranties, Pierce agreed to close and not pursue his remedy in rescission. Pierce’s agreement to forego suit constitutes valuable consideration for the warranties.”
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.