Driver-Miller Plumbing, Inc. v. Fromm’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently May 1999
16 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 Staley v. New · Archuleta v. Velasquez
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The second point on appeal is to the effect that plaintiff should have been held liable in damages to defendants on their counterclaim because of breach of warranty to furnish a radiant heating system as specified and which would be usable as installed. "As to the claim that there was a breach of warranty in failing to furnish the system specified, the discussion above should be a complete answer. The court found, and the finding is amply supported by adequate proof under the most stringent requirements, that the installation was made by plaintiff in accordance with instructions from Melvin B. Fromm, the general contractor, and with his knowledge and acquiescence. Accordingly, no complaint can be made that plaintiff failed to comply strictly with the original specifications. "Concerning the claimed implied warranty that the system when installed would be usable, we call attention to the fact that Mr. Fromm obtained the specifications and gave them to plaintiff. Also, it was Mr. Fromm who gave the directions with reference to the deviations therefrom. We see no basis for a claim that plaintiffs should be held responsible for the failure of the system to heat satisfactorily. "This case is very like Staley v. New, 56 N.M. 756 , 250 P.2d 893 , the only difference being that here Mr. Fromm, the owner and general contractor, made certain changes in the specifications, whereas no changes were made in the Staley case. However, this difference in the factual situation in no way alter”
2 later decisions 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.