King Hardware Co. v. Ennis’s Empirical Analysis
1929
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably 85 Ga. App. 538 - JC Lewis Motor Co. Inc. v. Williams (1952), 141 Ga. App. 175 - Pierce v. Liberty Furniture Co. (1977)
3 federal appellate · 44 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 Richmond Co v. Elliott · Fulton Ice & Coal Co. v. Pece · Citizens & Southern Bank v. Union Warehouse & Compress Co. · 29 Ga. App. 773 - New Zealand Fire Insurance v. Brewer · Lewis v. Terry
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . ‘It is the general rule that a vendor or dealer who is not the manufacturer, is under no obligation to test an article purchased and sold by him for the purpose of discovering latent or concealed defects, but that, when he purchases and sells an article in common and general use, in the usual course of trade, without knowledge of its dangerous quality, and with nothing tending reasonably to call his attention thereto, he is not negligent in failing to exercise care to determine whether it is dangerous or not. In such a case he may assume that the manufacturer has done his duty in properly constructing the article, and in not placing upon the market a commodity which is defective and likely to inflict injury.’ King Hardware Co. v. Ennis, 39 Ga.App. 355 , 360, 147 S.E. 119 , 121.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Representations imply knowledge, and if a tradesman sells or furnishes an article representing it to be safe for the uses for which it was designed . . . and if it turns out that the article was defective, then, in a suit against him for injuries occasioned thereby, an allegation that he either knew or ought to have known of the defects will be sufficient as a charge of negligence in his failure to know.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“. .. structural descriptions of defects alleged in machinery are not required in order to give the necessary certainty. To state specific concrete improper results which a machine in question produced is often sufficient to describe a defect definitely”
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.