Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. v. Brookhaven Manor Water Co.’s Empirical Analysis
532 F.2d 572 · 1976
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 6 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably Collins v. State (1987), Benson v. Allphin (1986)
44 federal appellate · 6 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 13 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 37 Ill. 2d 494 - Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern Railroad · Johnson v. United States · Bonebrake v. Cox · Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass'n v. Thomas
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We find ample support in the cases arising under the UCC itself that the scope of coverage of `goods' is not to be given a narrow construction but instead should be viewed as being broad in scope so as to carry out the underlying purpose of the Code of achieving uniformity in commercial transactions. The Code, which by its own terms, § 1-102, is to be liberally construed, should be uniformly applied to achieve its purposes. We believe Illinois would so decide. In the present case, while the finished tank was scarcely one to be taken off the shelf, we are unaware of any authority that specially manufactured small dies should be goods and a very large tank not so classified. In the words of the UCC this was a `movable' `thing' `specially manufactured.' That which PDM agreed to sell and Brookhaven agreed to buy was not services but goods as defined in the UCC."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[We find a dearth of authority going to a point relied upon ..., namely, that the Code was not meant to cover 'nondivisible mixed [goods and services]} contracts of this type.' Rather, the cases presenting mixed contracts of this type are legion. The test for inclusion or exclusion is not whether they are mixed, but, granting that they are mixed, whether their predominant factor, their thrust, their purpose, reasonably stated, is the rendition of service, with goods incidentally involved (eg., contract with artist for painting) or is a transaction of sale, with labor incidentally involved (e.g. installation of a water heater in a bathroom)."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) resort to any remedy for breach (Section 2-703 or Section 2-711), even though he has notified the repudiating party that he would await the latter's performance and has urged retraction; and”
3 later decisions 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.