Pack & Process, Inc. v. Celotex Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently September 2017
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 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 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate J Bosch Second National Bank of New Haven · Ebersole v. Lowengrub · Stephenson v. Capano Development, Inc. · Layton v. Allen · Moore v. Sizemore
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Express warranties by the seller are created as follows: (a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise. (b) Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description. (c)Any sample or model which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the whole of the goods shall conform to the sample or model. (2) It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the seller use formal words such as "warrant” or "guarantee” or that he have a specific intention to make a warranty, but an affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be merely the seller's opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Just as the privity requirement has been abandoned in personal injury actions where the item is inherently dangerous, so should the privity requirement be abandoned in actions for economic injury where the good is inherently defective. (Citations omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n construing the terms of a contract, the courts are not bound by the literal language of the agreement, but can engage in the process of interpretation by which the respective rights and duties of the parties are determined.”
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.