Roth Steel Products v. Sharon Steel Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
705 F.2d 134 · 1983
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 182 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc. v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance (1989), Hoover v. Sumlin (1984)
53 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 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 Foman v. Davis · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co. · Stevens v. Marks
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 182 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“no longer may a party admit the existence of a contract, or facts which may establish existence of a contract, and simultaneously claim the benefits of the statute of frauds”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““These same purposes are served by requiring notice of breach in instances where the goods are conforming, but the performance is late, or at a higher price than the contract allows. Often, a seller’s failure to conform to the terms of the contract may not amount to a clear breach. For example, his performance may not conform for reasons which are beyond his control and which would excuse his failure to perform. See ... (U.C.C. Sec. 2-615). Also, custom or usage of trade often permit deviations in performance, see ... (U.C.C. Sec. 2-103(l)(b)); ... (U.C.C. Sec. 2-208); a seller may believe his performance is acceptable, even though it does not strictly conform to the contract. See generally, ... (U.C.C. Sec. 2-504); ... (U.C.C. Sec. 2-612(3)). In short, non-conforming performance is often equivocal. The statute, by its terms, requires notice with regards to ‘any breach’ and the same policies which support a rule requiring notice of breach when a latent defect is discovered also support a rule requiring notice of breach when performance does not conform to time or price terms of the contract. Thus, we hold that ... (U.C.C. Sec. 2-607(3)) requires a buyer, who has accepted a non-conforming tender, to give notice of breach to seller that he has not performed according to the terms of the contract. Eastern Airlines v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 532 F.2d at 972-73 ; MacGregor v. McReki, Inc., 30 Colo.App. 196 , 494 P.2d 1297 (1971).” [Citations and footnotes omitted.]”
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.