Gilbert v. Monaco Coach Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 3 state decisions

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

1. “[Revocation of acceptance has the effect of returning the buyer and seller to the positions they were in before the transaction; allowing a buyer to pursue this remedy against the manufacturer, rather than the seller, does not achieve this result. If revocation of acceptance is the remedy plaintiffs ultimately desired, then they needed to file suit against the seller, the party with whom they are in privity.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Watts v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC · 459 F. Supp. 2d 1028 - Stoebner Motors, Inc. v. Automobili Lamborghini S.P.A.

2. “In light of the technological complexity of most automobiles currently on the market, forcing consumers to identify the cause, rather than the effect, of a defect would be unrealistically burdensome to the very persons the Magnu-son-Moss Warranty Act was meant to aid_One of Congress’s express purposes in enacting the MMWA was “to make warranties on consumer products more readily understood and enforceable.” H.R.Rep. No. 93-1107 (1974). Indeed, Congress was concerned about the inability of consumers to have their products repaired. H.R.Rep. No. 93-1107 (1974). For the Court to then require a plaintiff bringing such an action to prove not only that a defect exists but also its exact, technical cause would thwart the intent of Congress. Warran-tors, rather than consumers, are in the better position to diagnose the sources of problems complained of by consumers. Once a consumer has alerted the warrantor to the defect, the warrantor who wishes to avoid the repair or replacement cost must establish that the alleged defect is not caused by something covered by the issued warranty. To hold otherwise would place too great a burden on consumers owning defective, yet warranted, products and would render the warranties virtually useless.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 542 F. Supp. 2d 869 - Cimino v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.

3. “Federal minimum standards for warranties.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 992 So. 2d 319 - Ocana v. Ford Motor Co.