Cohen v. AM General Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 2024
3 federal appellate · 12 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 2301 (Magnuson-Moss Warranty—Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2310
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · 115 Ill. 2d 294 - Szajna v. General Motors Corp. · B.L., T. S.D. Co. v. . K.T. M.M.A. Assn. · Corral v. Rollins Protective Services 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) any written affirmation of fact or written promise made in connection with the sale of a consumer product by a supplier to a buyer which relates to the nature of the material or workmanship and affirms or promises that such material or workmanship is defect free or will meet a specified level of performance over a specified period of time, or (B) any undertaking in writing in connection with the sale by a supplier of a consumer product to refund, repair, replace or take any other remedial action with respect to such product in the event that such product fails to meet the specifications set forth in the undertaking, which written affirmation, promise, or undertaking becomes part of the basis of the bargain between a supplier and a buyer for purposes other than resale of such product.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““The Act does not require us to look at the bundle of rights acquired by the purchaser and the lessee. Instead, a plain reading of the Act forces us to simply look for a warranty exchange in connection with a sale. Defendant clearly sold the vehicle to Mister Leasing and, when doing so, made a series of promises in connection with this sale. This is enough for the warranty to meet the first part of the definition of ‘written warranty’ in 15 U.S.C. § 2301 (6).””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“any person to whom such product is transferred during the duration of an implied or written warranty (or service contract) applicable to the product.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.