Fenwick v. Kay American Jeep, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
14 district · 89 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co. (1994), Gennari v. Weichert Co. Realtors (1997)
14 district · 89 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 Riley v. New Rapids Carpet Center · 136 N.J. Super. 114 - Fenwick v. Kay American Jeep, 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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... [t]he act, use or employment by any person of any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, [or] misrepresentation ... in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise....”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[C]apacity to mislead is the prime ingredient of deception or an unconscionable commercial practice.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... The Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq., was passed in response to widespread complaints about selling practices which victimized consumers. Riley v. New Rapids Carpet Center, 61 N.J. 218, 224-225 (1972). The purpose of the Act was to prevent deception, fraud or falsity, whether by acts of commission or omission, in connection with the sale and advertisement of merchandise and real estate. To accomplish the objectives of the Act, the Attorney General is empowered to promulgate such rules and regulations as might be necessary. N.J.S.A. 56:8-4. [ Fenwick v. Kay American Jeep, Inc., 72 N.J. 372, 376-377 (1977)].”
7 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.