Miller v. Herman’s Empirical Analysis
600 F.3d 726 · 2010
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1635 (§ 125 of the Truth in Lending Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2301 (Magnuson-Moss Warranty—Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2310 · 15 U.S.C. § 2312 · 17 U.S.C. § 411 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Bell v. Hood · United States v. Mead Corp.
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a product is a “consumer product” if the use of that type of product is not uncommon. The percentage of sales or the use to which a product is put by any individual buyer is not determinative. For example, products such as automobiles and typewriters which are used for both personal and commercial purposes come within the definition of consumer product. Where it is unclear whether a particular product is covered under the definition of consumer product, any ambiguity will be resolved in favor of coverage.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“contracted with Herman for the construction of a new home. The home was not existing; the windows at issue here were purchased by Herman, a contractor, to install into the home. [The plaintiffs have] not produced any evidence showing a separate contract for the windows, or a separate transaction for them in which [they were] personally engaged .... [Thus], the windows are not “consumer products” within the meaning of Magnuson-Moss.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“contracted with Herman for the construction of a new home, not for the individual sale of windows. Because those windows were intended to be integrated into the [plaintiffs’] home, we find that they do not constitute “consumer products” under the Magnuson-Moss Act, but are instead building materials indistinguishable from the real property. Thus, the [plaintiffs] have no valid claims under the Magnuson-Moss Act.”
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.