Presidio Enterprises, Inc. v. Warner Bros. Distributing Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
784 F.2d 674 · 1986
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co. (1999), Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John's International, Inc. (2000)
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego · Old Dominion Branch No. 496 v. Austin · Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler · Trenholm v. Ratcliff
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) admit[ ] of being adjudged true or false in a way that (2) admit[ ] of empirical verification.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The habit of vendors to exaggerate the advantages of the bargain that they are offering to make is a well recognized fact. An intending- purchaser may not be justified in relying upon his vendor’s statement of the value, quality or other advantages of a thing that he is intending to sell as carrying with it any assurance that the thing is such as to justify a reasonable man in praising it so highly. $ # % ‡ ‡ # This is true particularly of loose general statements made by sellers in commending their wares, which are commonly known as “puffing,” or “sales talk.” It is common knowledge and may always be assumed that any seller will express a favorable opinion concerning what he has to sell; and when he praises it in general terms, without specific content or reference to facts, buyers are expected to and do understand that they are not entitled to rely literally upon the words. Such statements like the claims of campaign managers before election, are rather designed to allay the suspicion which would attend their absence than to be understood as having any relation to objective truth. Thus no action lies against a dealer who describes the automobile he is selling as a “dandy,” a “bearcat,” a “good little car,” and a “sweet job,” or as “the pride of our line,” or “the best in the American market.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a measure of degree; as to particular goods quality may be calibrated by standard or grade, as with eggs or meat, or specified by style or model, as with machinery.”
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.