310 Pa. Super. 425 - Weiss v. Keystone MacK Sales, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
139 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions — most recently March 2006 · most notably 375 Pa. Super. 187 - Eckenrod v. GAF Corp. (1988), 417 Pa. Super. 316 - Rutherfoord v. Presbyterian-University Hospital (1992)
139 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 212 Pa. Super. 58 - Schacter v. Albert · 249 Pa. Super. 240 - Amabile v. Auto Kleen Car Wash · 215 Pa. Super. 44 - McFadden v. American Oil Co. · 280 Pa. Super. 329 - Tom Morello Construction Co. v. Bridgeport Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · 320 F. Supp. 39 - Jones & McKnight Corp. v. Birdsboro Corporation
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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) After the pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to delay trial, any party may move for summary judgment on the pleadings and any deposition, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file and supporting affidavits.” “(b) . . . The judgment sought shall be rendered if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. ...””
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“Also, the lower court confined its view of the case to the purchase order. The record suggests, however, that the events on which appellant's claim is based did not end with the signing of the purchase order. As we have discussed, when appellant complained that the engine was emitting smoke, appellee undertook to repair it, and gave appellant a "30 day warranty 50/50" on the engine, and "certif[ied]" that the engine was "in excellent running condition." Then, when it was discovered that the engine in fact had a cracked block, appellee replaced it, taking some sixty-seven days to do so. It is by no means clear and the lower court did not consider whether appellee's conduct subsequent to the execution of the purchase order resulted in a new contractual or warranty obligation coming into being, either as a proper modification of the purchase order, or as an obligation created later than and distinct from the purchase order.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"THIS TRUCK SOLD `AS IS.' `WHERE IS.' NO WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE IS OFFERED OR IMPLIED."”
2 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.