Kinkel v. Winne’s Empirical Analysis
1903
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1929
2 federal appellate · 5 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 Deming v. Foster · Goulds v. Brophy · Bartlett v. . Hoppock · Lukens v. Freiund · Wisconsin Red Pressed-Brick Co. v. Hood
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If an order be given for the manufacture or supply of an article to satisfy a required purpose, that purpose, and not any specific article, being the essential matter of the contract, the seller is then bound, as a condition of the contract, to supply an article reasonably fit for the purpose, and is considered as warranting that it is so. If an order be given for a specific article of a recognized kind or description, . . . and the article is supplied, there is no warranty that it will answer the purpose described or supposed, although intended and expected to do so.” (Page 103.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ehrsam v. Brown““Where a known, described and defined article is ordered of a manufacturer, although it is stated to be required by the purchaser for a particular purpose, still, if the known, described and defined thing be actually supplied, there is no warranty that it shall answer the particular purpose intended by the buyer.” (p. 104.)”
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.