55 Ark. App. 42 - Pennington v. Rhodes’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2025
4 federal appellate · 12 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 Wheeler Motor Co., Inc. v. Roth · Willson Safety Products v. Eschenbrenner · Carter v. Quick · BARNES, QUINN, FLAKE, AND ANDERSON, INC. v. Rankins · Daniel v. Quick
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) either that repairing the defects was unreasonable because it would have involved more destruction of quality workmanship than would have been warranted considering the value likely to be added to the house by making the repairs, or (b) that the repairs would have been disproportionate to the probable increase in value to [the injured parties] resulting from proper construction, so that difference in value would have been the proper measure of damages”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If a breach results in defective or unfinished construction and the loss in value to the injured party is not proved with sufficient certainty, he may recover damages based on[:] (a) the diminution in the market price of the property caused by the breach, or (b) the reasonable cost of completing performance or of remedying the defects if that cost is not clearly disproportionate to the probable loss in value to him.”
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.