41 Ohio App. 2d 1 - Eckstein v. Cummins’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Roth Steel Products v. Sharon Steel Corp. (1983), Standard Alliance Industries, Inc. v. Black Clawson Co. (1978)
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 36 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. · Hawkins Construction Co. v. Matthews Co., Inc. · United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Truck & Concrete Equipment Co. · Greeno v. Clark Equipment Company · 125 Ga. App. 462 - Jacobs v. Metro Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To place the purchaser of a defective vehicle incapable of repair in the anomalous position of having no actionable claim for relief pursuant to the strict language of the express warranty and disclaimer therein, because the precise nature of the defect cannot be determined and the plaintiff cannot identify any defective part, the replacement of which could remedy the defect, would be to defeat the very purpose of the warranty which had been given to the purchaser. Such a result would substantially deprive the buyer of the benefit of his bargain and is unconscionable. Although the warranty and disclaimer, which is strictly limited to parts, is not unconscionable on its face, it cannot be applied to the facts of this unique case in a conscionable manner. Otherwise, there would be noncompliance with R.C. 1302.15 and 1302.93(B). Meyer v. Packer [sic] Cleveland Motor Co. (1922), 106 Ohio St. 328 [ 140 N.E. 118 ]; Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors (1960), 32 N.J. 358 , 161 A.2d 69 ; Hardy v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (1928), 38 Ga.App. 463 , 144 S.E. 327 ; cf. Manheim v. Ford Motor Co. (Fla.1967), 201 So.2d 440 ; Walsh v. Ford Motor Co. (1969), 59 Misc.2d 241 , 298 N.Y.S.2d 538 ; Jacobs v. Metro Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. (1972), 125 Ga.App. 462 , 188 S.E.2d 250 ; Greeno v. Clark Equipment Co. (N.D.Ind.1965), 237 F.Supp. 427 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ . . .to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted, unless special circumstances show proximate damages of a different amount.””
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.