Rosen v. Spanierman’s Empirical Analysis
894 F.2d 28 · 1990
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Diduck v. Kaszycki & Sons Contractors, Inc. (1992), Turtur v. Rothschild Registry InternaTional, Inc. (1994)
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Jo Ann Homes at Bellmore, Inc. v. Dworetz · Burtnieks v. City of New York · Triangle Underwriters, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc. · Harding v. New York State Teamsters Council Welfare Trust Fund
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'third party can recover damages for a fraudulent misrepresentation if he can establish that he relied upon it to his detriment, and that the defendants intended the misrepresentation to be conveyed to him'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“create an exception to section 2-725’s explicitness requirement when the warranty concerns an immutable quality____ As the district court recognized, subdivision 2 of section 2-725 is itself an exception to the general statute of limitations on breach of warranty claims. It would be inappropriate to expand this exception beyond its plain terms by dispensing with the condition that, to take advantage of the exception, the warranty explicitly extend to future performance. 12”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Rosens could have discovered Spanierman’s asserted fraud immediately after their purchase by presenting the painting to an independent expert, and this ability to discover bars their breach of warranty claim. But New York courts have exhibited a reluctance to impute discovery to a plaintiff maintaining a claim of fraud who has no reason to suspect that he has been defrauded. See, e.g., Trepuk v. Frank, 44 N.Y.2d 723 , 724-25, 376 N.E.2d 924 , 926, 405 N.Y.S.2d 452 , 453 (1978); Azoy v. Fowler, 57 A.D.2d 541, 541-42 , 393 N.Y.S.2d 173, 174-75 (2d Dep’t 1977). On the facts as alleged, the Rosens had no reason to suspect the authenticity of their painting until they tried to sell it in 1987. Thus, their fraud claim appears to be timely brought.”
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.