MacKenzie v. Chrysler Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.2d 1162 · 1979
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Boelens v. Redman Homes Inc & Boelens (1984), Schimmer v. Jaguar Cars, Inc. (2004)
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 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 The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Yi Au Lau v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service · 189 So. 2d 113 - State Stove Manufacturing Company v. Hodges · Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. Keys · Mid-Continent Telephone Corp. v. Home Telephone Co.
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the legislative history clearly implies that a resort to state law is proper in determining the applicable measure of damages under the Act.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted, unless special circumstances show proximate damages of a different amount.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“would have been entitled to recover no more under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act than he did recover under the court's instructions regarding the express and implied warranties set out by Mississippi law, ... the court's failure to grant [the plaintiff's] requested charge, if error, was harmless and therefore insufficient to require reversal.”
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.