36 Tenn. App. 281 - Kohn v. Ball’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 2006
10 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 Cantrell v. Burnett & Henderson Co. · G. M. C. Truck Co. v. Kelley · Grissom v. Commerial National Bank
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ (1) Where the buyer * * * makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and * * * relies on the seller’s skill or judgment (whether he be the grower or manufacturer or not), there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose. “ (2) Where the-goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description (whether he be the grower or manufacturer or not), there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be of merchantable quality. ’ ’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““A warranty as to the condition of the car when sold is imposed upon the dealer by Code Section 7208. “We take this to refer to subsection (2), supra, referring to condition or merchantable quality, whereas subsection (1) refers to fitness for the particular purpose known to the seller. “The term sale by description strictly means an executory sale where the article is not present, hut the term has been broadened to include all sales, •whether or not the goods are present, where there is no adequate opportunity for inspection. 21 A. L. R. 373; 168 A. L. R. 391, 414. “Hence, we think this sale falls under subsection (2) and gives an implied warranty of condition or merchantable quality. “This being true, subsection (4) has no application to such a warranty but applies only to eliminate the warranty for a particular purpose. ‘ ‘ ‘ The fact that a sale is of a known, described and definite article, or of a specific article by its patent or trade name, does not, according to most of the cases, preclude an implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a purpose for which such article is ordinarily or generally sold. On the contrary, it is held in most of the cases that there is such a warranty in such a case’. 46 Am. Jur. 537 , sec. 351; see also sec. 344. See also, G. M. C. Truck Co. v. Kelley, 105 Okl. 84 , 231 P. 882 ; 168 A. L. R. 405, for application of rule to sale of new motor vehicle.”
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.