Clark v. Separator Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
639 F.2d 1320 · 1981
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably Plas-Tex, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp. (1989), Gumbs v. International Harvester, Inc. (1983)
22 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 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 Adam G. Nunez v. The Superior Oil Company · Nobility Homes of Texas, Inc. v. Shivers · Standard Alliance Industries, Inc. v. Black Clawson Co. · Shamrock Fuel & Oil Sales Co. v. Tunks · Metal Structures Corp. v. Plains Textiles, Inc.
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued. ... (b) A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs regardless of the aggrieved party’s lack of knowledge of the breach. A breach of warranty occurs when tender of delivery is made except that where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods and discovery of the breach must await the time of such performance the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) Subject to Subsection (c), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that “There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof.” (c) Notwithstanding Subsection (b) (1) unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like “as is”, “with all faults” or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer’s attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty; and (2) when the buyer before entering into the contract has examined the goods or the sample or model as fully as he desired or has refused to examine the goods there is no implied warranty with regard to defects which an examination ought in the circumstances to have revealed to him; and (3) an implied warranty can also be excluded or modified by course of dealing or course of performance or usage of trade.”
2 later decisions 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.