Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 320 NW2D 786 - Hofmann v. Stoller

Hofmann v. Stoller’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
3
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2025

2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

8019821990200020102020decided

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 Neri v. Retail Marine Corp. · Intermeat, Inc. v. American Poultry Inc. · Dehahn v. Innes · Upson v. Fitzgerald · Petroleo Brasileiro, SA, Petro. v. Ameropan Oil Corp.

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

  1. “While the distinction between the two is not an obvious one, the Code makes plain that incidental damages are normally incurred when a buyer (or seller) repudiates the contract or wrongfully rejects the goods, causing the other to incur such expenses as transporting, storing, or reselling the goods. On the other hand, consequential damages do not arise within the scope of the immediate buyer-seller transaction, but rather stem from losses incurred by the non-breaching party in its dealings, often with third parties, which were a proximate result of the breach, and which were reasonably foreseeable by the breaching party at the time of contracting.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “2. Consequential damages resulting from the seller’s breach include: a. Any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of which the seller at the time of contracting had reason to know and which could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise; and b. Injury to person or property proximately resulting from any breach of warranty.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the parties consented to all the promises as a single whole”
    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.