Turner v. Central Hardware Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently December 2000 · most notably Charles F. Curry and Company v. Hedrick (1964), B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Hammond (1959)
4 federal appellate · 46 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 Stanley Manly Boys Clothes, Inc. v. Hickey · King Smith v. Kansas City Life Insurance Co. · Cazzell v. Schofield · Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Anderson · 236 Mo. App. 142 - The Belt Seed Co. v. Mitchelhill Seed Co.
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The seller’s privilege to puff his wares, enhance their quality and recommend their value, even to the point of exaggeration, is unquestionable, so long as his salesmanship remains in the field of ‘dealer’s talk,’ commendation or mere expressions of opinion [cite omitted]. Particularly do the obligations of warranty not attach when the seller’s talk is confined to expressions of opinion and not affirmations of fact. . . . Also, depending on the circumstances, assertions in handbills and advertisements as to the quality or condition of chattels may not, as a matter of law, be construed as warranties, and certainly not if they do not become a part of the contract of sale [cites omitted]. But the seller’s protection lies in the fact that his is the choice of language and action. The tendency is to restrict the meaning and interpretation of the seller’s language, especially as to the untruthful puffing of his wares, and, hold ‘positive statements of quality affirmations of fact.’ ” [cites omitted; emphasis added].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The seller's privilege to puff his wares, enhance their quality, and recommend their value, even to the point of exaggeration, is unquestionable, so long as his salesmanship remains in the field of "dealer's talk", commendation or mere expressions of opinion. 46 Am.Jur. § 326, p. 506. Particularly do the obligations of warranty not attach when the seller's talk is confined to expressions of opinion and not affirmations of fact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ * * * But for the affirmation to constitute a warranty against so specific a defect it is not necessary that the defect be named. If there was a specific affirmation or representation of fact that the ladder was safe or sound there was an express warranty of safety or soundness which includes and covers the latent defect of cross-grained wood.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mitchell v. Rudasill
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.