Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 635 F.2d 1081 - Chatlos Systems, Inc. v. National Cash Register Corp.

Chatlos Systems, Inc. v. National Cash Register Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

635 F.2d 1081 · 1980

Citation profile

127
cited by 127 later decisions
16
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 22 district · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 127 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Milgard Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp. of America (1990), 28 Mass. App. Ct. 108 - USM Corp. v. Arthur D. Little Systems, Inc. (1989)

31 federal appellate · 22 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 16 states

6301980199020002010decided

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 Wilson Company v. Smith International Inc · Soo Line Railroad v. Fruehauf Corp. · Beal v. General Motors Corporation · Gladden v. Cadillac Motor Car Division

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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[I]t is worth mentioning that even though unsuccessful in correcting the problems within an appropriate time [the seller] continued in its efforts.... This is not a case where the seller acted unreasonably or in bad faith.”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Schurtz v. BMW of North America, Inc. · Roneker v. Kenworth Truck Co.
  2. ““ * * * Viewed from the buyer’s standpoint, the repair remedy’s aim is to provide goods that conform to the contract for sale and do so at an appropriate time. A delay in supplying the remedy can just as effectively deny the purchaser the product he expected as can the total inability to repair. In both instances the buyer loses the substantial benefit of his purchase.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Middletown Concrete Products, Inc. v. Black Clawson Co. · Roneker v. Kenworth Truck Co.
  3. “[w]here circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided (under the U.C.C.).”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 211 N.J. Super. 376 - Kearney & Trecker Corp. v. Master Engraving Co., Inc. · 538 F. Supp. 776 - Office Supply Co., Inc. v. Basic/Four Corp.

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.