Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 426 F. Supp. 361 - Closed Circuit Corp. of America v. Jerrold Electronics Corp.

426 F. Supp. 361 - Closed Circuit Corp. of America v. Jerrold Electronics Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
4
states following
March 2015
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 3 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably 411 Pa. Super. 347 - Bash v. Bell Telephone Co. (1992), 2002 Pa. Super. 347 - Etoll, Inc. v. Elias/Savion Advertising, Inc. (2002)

2 federal appellate · 3 district · 15 state decisions

14019771980199020002010decided

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 Pell v. Procunier · Speiser v. Randall · General Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Manufacturing Co. · Jones v. Rogers Memorial Hospital · Brown v. Moore

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

  1. “Although mere non-performance of a contract does not constitute a fraud ... it is possible that a breach of contract also gives rise to an actionable tort.... “To be construed as in tort, however, the wrong ascribed to defendant must be the gist of the action, the contract being collateral.” 1 C.J.S. Actions § 46. A claim ex contractu cannot be converted to one in tort simply by alleging that the conduct in question was wantonly done.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “wilfully, knowingly, maliciously, and fraudulently [sold] plaintiff faulty and defective electronic televisions which did not function as promised.” Id. at 361 . The plaintiff pled fraud but the court indicated that it was really a contract action to which the U.C.C. applied. Insofar as the plaintiffs losses stemmed from poor manufacturing, tort recovery was barred:”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““If a party could' simply, by alleging that a contracting party never intended to fulfill his promise, create a tortious action in fraud, there would be no effective way of preventing almost every contract case from being converted to a tort for jurisdictional purposes.” 426 F.Supp. at 365 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.