Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 257 F.1d 130 - The Soerstad

The Soerstad’s Empirical Analysis

257 F. 130 · 1919

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
September 1981
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1981

7 federal appellate · 2 district ·

9019191920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Luckenbach v. W. J. McCahan Sugar Refining Co. · Wesley Richardson v. Judson Harmon · Pendleton v. Benner Line

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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““A warranty is a promise that a proposition of fact is true. Theoretically it is extremely difficult to interpret it otherwise than as a promise to make whole the warrantee, if the warranty turns out to be false, since a promise is normally a stipulation for some future conduct by the promisor. If it is so regarded, then clearly the breach of warranty is with the warrantor’s privity, for by hypothesis he has deliberately refused to make whole the warrantee. However, it must be conceded that the law regards the breach as arising at once if the warranty be false, and the warrantee’s logs as damages, not as a condition for the warrantor’s performance. So viewed, the warrantor has misled the warrantee by falsely assuring him of the truth through the warranty, and the wrong consists of the assurance, the warrantee’s reliance upon it, and his loss; just as in cases of deceit, except that no scienter is necessary. And so the action on warranty was originally ‘a pure action of tort’ (Ames, History of Assumpsit, 2 Harv.L.R. 1, 8), and arose a century before action on the case for assumpsit. The action sounded indeed in deceit (Y. B. 11 ed. IV, 6, plac. 11), and it was not till 1778, in Stuart v. Wilkins, 3 Doug. 118 , that assumpsit appears to have been used on a seller’s warranty. “Regarded in this way, which is probably the correct way historically, it follows inevitably that a breach of warranty should be held to be with the warrantor’s privity, because all the elements of the caus”
    2 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.