Agristor Leasing v. Saylor’s Empirical Analysis
803 F.2d 1401 · 1986
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently May 2002 · most notably Gagne v. Northwestern National Insurance Company, Agristor Financial Corp. v. Van Sickle (1992)
19 federal appellate · 3 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 McCroskey v. Bryant Air Conditioning Company · Tartera v. Palumbo · 60 Tenn. App. 271 - Ford Motor Company v. Taylor · Foster v. Harris · Rudd-Melikian, Inc. v. Merritt
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the district court did not err in denying summary judgment and a directed verdict on the basis of the disclaimers of reliance.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Saylor Udder Nonsense Dairy v. Ao Smith Harvestore Products Inc · James Saylor and Kaaren Saylor D/B/A Udder Nonsense Dairy, Counterplaintiffs-Third-Party v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc., (87-5990/80-5279), Hermitage Harvestore Systems, Inc., and Chuck Dowdy (87-6002/88-5314), Third-Party“[a] feed storage system in which ensiled feeds are protected from the access of oxygen.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Saylor Udder Nonsense Dairy v. Ao Smith Harvestore Products Inc · James Saylor and Kaaren Saylor D/B/A Udder Nonsense Dairy, Counterplaintiffs-Third-Party v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc., (87-5990/80-5279), Hermitage Harvestore Systems, Inc., and Chuck Dowdy (87-6002/88-5314), Third-Party“Furthermore, I believe that a contractual disclaimer of reliance may be competent evidence on the issue of whether the plaintiff had relied upon alleged misrepresentations, because a rule to the contrary would allow a person to enter into a commercial bargain, sign a contract containing an explicit term describing what that party did and did not rely upon in entering into the agreement, and then be relieved of any responsibility for that term when it later suited him. To illustrate, imagine what would have occurred had the [plaintiffs] paused just before signing the contract, declared that they didn’t like the reliance-disclaimer clause, and insisted upon a contractual term stating explicitly that they relied upon all of the representations made in promotional literature and all of the representations made by the salesman. I can hardly imagine that, under those circumstances, the transaction would have gone forward unimpeded. Both my sense that the above-described scenario would endanger the deal and my conclusion that a disclaimer of reliance may be used to show that a plaintiff did not rely on particular representations, stem from the fundamental doctrine of Contracts'that honors lawful, consensual, informed commercial agreements. I see no reason that this doctrine should disappear in the presence of an allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.