Pennington v. Singleton’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 130 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 159 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc. (1995), Helena Chemical Co. v. Wilkins (2001)
17 federal appellate · 130 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 Connally v. General Construction Co. · Screws v. United States · Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville · Coates v. City of Cincinnati · United States v. National Dairy Products 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 159 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Subdivision (7) prohibits representing that a good is of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, or model if it is of another. Quality is a measure of degree; as to particular goods quality may be calibrated by standard or grade, as with eggs or meat, or specified by style or model, as with machinery. Even when specific categories are not devised, the good may still be described with more general words of quality. Words like ‘excellent’ and ‘perfect’ are words indicating a high degree of quality.” ****** “Some overlap may occur as a result of broadly interpreting the listed violations in § 17.46(b). A broad interpretation is warranted, however, due to human inventiveness in engaging in deceptive or misleading conduct. The legislature did not intend its express purpose of protecting consumers from false trade practices to be circumvented by those who would seek out loopholes in the Act’s provisions.” Pennington v. Singleton, 606 S.W.2d 682, 687 (Tex.Sup.1980).”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he primary emphasis is on the intention of the legislature, keeping in view “the old law, the evil and the remedy.” Legislative intent should be determined from the language of the entire Act and not isolated portions. The court is not necessarily confined to the literal meaning of the words used, and the legislative intent rather than the strict letter of the Act will control.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) A consumer may maintain an action if he has been adversely affected by any of the following: (1) the use or employment by any person of an act or practice declared to be unlawful by Section 17.46 of this subchapter; (2) breach of an express or implied warranty; (3) any unconscionable action or cause of action by any person; (b) In a suit filed under this section, each consumer who prevails may obtain: (1)three times the amount of actual damages plus court costs and attorney’s fees reasonable in relation to the amount of work expended. . . .”
4 later decisions 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.