3 Kan. App. 2d 1 - Linscott v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
2 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Coyle Chevrolet Co. v. Carrier (1979), 100 Wis. 2d 13 - Trinkle v. Schumacher Co. (1980)
2 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Bonebrake v. Cox · 169 Ind. App. 556 - Jones v. Abriani · Soo Line Railroad v. Fruehauf Corp. · 16 Wash. App. 39 - Testo v. Russ Dunmire Oldsmobile, Inc. · 44 Ill. App. 3d 530 - Stamm v. Wilder Travel Trailers
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Rejection of goods must be within a reasonable time after their delivery or tender. It is ineffective unless the buyer seasonably notifies the señer. (b) Subject to the provisions of the two (2) following sections on rejected goods (sections 34.1-2-603 and 34.1-2-604): (i) After rejection any exercise of ownership by the buyer with respect to any commercial unit is wrongful as against the señer; and (ñ) If the buyer has before rejection taken physical possession of goods in which he does not have a security interest under the provisions of this article (section 34.1 — 2—711(c)), he is under a duty after rejection to hold them with reasonable care at the seller’s disposition for a time sufficient to permit the señer to remove them; but (in) The buyer has no further obh-gation with regard to goods rightfully rejected.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Sec. 508: * * * * * * (1) Where any tender or delivery by the seller is rejected because nonconforming and the time for performance has not yet expired, the seller may seasonably notify the buyer of his intention to cure and may then within the contract time make a conforming delivery. (2) Where the buyer rejects a nonconforming tender which the seller had rea sonable grounds to believe would be acceptable with or without money allowance the seller may if he may if he seasonably notifies the buyer have a further reasonable time to substitute a conforming tender.”
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.