Peterson v. BASF Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 2024
9 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
Applies 7 U.S.C. § 136A · 7 U.S.C. § 136J
Relies on Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co. · Dolgow v. Anderson · Meshinsky v. Nichols Yacht Sales, Inc. · Daaleman v. Elizabethtown Gas Company · Rathbun v. WT Grant Company
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The act, use or employment by any person of any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate, or with the subsequent performance of such person as aforesaid, whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is declared to be. an unlawful practice * * ⅜.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[The farmers] claim that they lost the opportunity to refuse to buy Poast because BASF's marketing scheme and exploitation of federal regulations concealed that Poast Plus was registered for the same uses as Poast. [Farmers'] reactions when they learned of BASF's scheme constitute circumstantial evidence that these farmers would not have stood idly by and paid inflated fees to BASF.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying [the farmers] as a class on their New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim.”
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.