Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 458 NW2D 683 - Hapka v. Paquin Farms

Hapka v. Paquin Farms’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
8
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 17 district · 43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety (1991), 164 Wis. 2d 306 - D'Huyvetter v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products (1991)

9 federal appellate · 17 district · 43 state decisions

580199020002010decided

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 East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc. · 63 Cal. 2d 9 - Seely v. White Motor Co. · Spring Motors Distributors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. · McCormack v. Hankscraft Company · Hoff v. Kempton

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

  1. “(a) any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and need of which the seller at the time of contracting had reason to know and which could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise; and (b) injury to person or property proximately resulting from any breach of warranty.”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[Ejconomic losses that arise out of commercial transactions, except those involving personal injury or damage to other property, are not recoverable under the tort theories of negligence and strict products liability.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The recognition of tort actions in the instant case would create a theory of redress not envisioned by the legislature when it enacted the U.C.C. Furthermore, tort theories of recovery would be totally unrestrained by legislative liability limitations, warranty disclaimers and notice provisions. To allow tort liability in commercial transactions would totally emasculate these provisions of the U.C.C. Clearly, the legislature did not intend for tort law to circumvent the statutory scheme of the U.C.C.”
    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.