Smith v. Kinslow’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably W.O. Bankston Nissan, Inc. v. Walters (1988), Cruz v. Andrews Restoration, Inc. (2012)
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 29 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 Woods v. Littleton · Jones v. George · Wright v. Davenport · United Postage Corp. v. Kammeyer · 35 Tex. Civ. App. 659 - Pecos & Northern Texas Railway Co. v. Lovelady
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) In a suit filed under this section, each consumer who prevails may obtain: (1) the amount of actual damages found by the trier of fact. In addition, the court shall award two times that portion of the actual damages that does not exceed $1,000. If the trier of fact finds that the conduct of the defendant was committed knowingly, the trier of fact may award not more than three times the amount of actual damages in excess of $1,000; [[Image here]] (3) orders necessary to restore to any party to the suit any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired in violation of this sub-chapter; ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Rjestoration of the consideration paid, as authorized by subdivision (3) [of § 17.50(b)], is a statutory recognition of the equitable remedy of rescission and restitution, based on the theory that the complaining party may elect to avoid the contract, surrender any benefits received, and recover that [which] he parted with.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Of course, the owner may recover the reasonable cost of obtaining the repairs elsewhere if he makes the necessary proof, even though that cost may be more than the agreed price, because such a recovery may be necessary to give him the full benefit of his contract. The repairman, however, is hardly in a position to assert that the price he charged was more than the reasonable value of the work he agreed to do. Consequently, if the owner elects to base his damages on the contract price, the repairman has no valid ground to object that the proper amount of damages has not been proved. We hold that under the findings in this case plaintiffs were entitled to recover the amount paid without proof of the reasonable cost of the repairs necessary to put the vehicle in the warranted condition.”
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.