Waggoner v. Midwestern Development, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 121 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Ethel Javins v. First National Realty Corporation, Rudolph Saunders v. First National Realty Corporation, Stanley Gross v. First National Realty Corporation (1970), 115 Wash. 2d 506 - ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co. (1990)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 121 state decisions — followed in 29 states
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 MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co. · 59 Cal. 2d 21 - Sabella v. Wisler · Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc. · 55 Cal. 2d 857 - Stewart v. Cox · Carpenter v. Donohoe
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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The builder is not required to construct a perfect house and in determining whether a house is defective the test is reasonableness and not perfection.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage““A deceit within the meaning of § 20-10-1 is either: (1) The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true; (2) The assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true; (3) The suppression of a fact by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact; or (4)A promise made without any intention of performing.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Rist v. Karlen · Mash v. Cutler“As a general rule, it may be said that where a person holds himself out as especially qualified to perform work of a particular character there is an implied warranty that the work shall be done in a reasonably good and workmanlike manner and that the completed product or structure shall be reasonably fit for its intended purpose. 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 329.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bunkers v. Jacobson
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.