Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 29 NY 358 - Reed v. . Randall

Reed v. . Randall’s Empirical Analysis

1864

Citation profile

92
cited by 92 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
16
states following
February 1982
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 84 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 92 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1982 · most notably Pierson v. . Crooks (1889), Dewey v. West Fairmont Gas Coal Co. (1887)

3 federal appellate · 84 state decisions — followed in 16 states

2601864187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Muller v. . Eno · Howard & Ryckman v. Hoey · Sprague v. Blake

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

  1. “[I]f the thing purchased is found, on examination, to be unsound, or not to answer the order given for it, [the vendee] must immediately return it to the vendor, or give him notice to take it back, and thereby rescind the contract, or he will be presumed to have acquiesced in its quality. He cannot accept the delivery of the property, under the contract, retain it, after an opportunity of ascertaining its quality, and recover damages, if it be not of the quality or description called for by such contract.... Reed v. Randall, 29 N.Y. 358, 362-63 (1864) (emphasis ours). * * * *”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The principle that, when the contract of sale is executory, the remedy of the purchaser to recover damages, on the ground that the article furnished does not correspond with the contract, will not survive an acceptance and retention of the property, after opportunity to ascertain the defect, without notifying the vendor, is well supported by authority.””
    1 later decision 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.