Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 93 Ariz. 191 - Davidson v. Wee

Davidson v. Wee’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
8
states following
February 2011
most recently cited

2 district · 47 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently February 2011 · most notably 62 Ill. App. 3d 344 - Goldstein v. G. D. Searle & Co. (1978), Colvin v. Superior Equipment Company (1964)

2 district · 47 state decisions

300196319701980199020002010decided

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 Ryan v. Progressive Grocery Stores, Inc. · 31 Cal. 2d 826 - Whitfield v. Jessup · Botti v. Venice Grocery Co. · Yuma County v. Arizona Edison Co. · Swetnam v. FW Woolworth Company

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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ * * * The determinative questions are (1) whether there was an implied warranty under which appellants may be held liable for the loss; and (2) whether the evidence supports the finding that the fire was caused by loose fuel line fittings. “Implied Warranty. “The answer to the first question is governed by application of the Uniform Sales Act. Section 29-1-45 A.C.L.A. 1949 provides in part that— “ ‘(2) Where the goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description (whether he be the grower or manufacturer or not), there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be of merchantable quality.’ “The implied warranty of merchantable quality includes a warranty that goods are reasonably fit for the ordinary purposes for which they are used. A mobile-home trailer is ordinarily used for the purpose of family living. It is not reasonably fit for that purpose when loose connections between the fuel line and an oil burning furnace permit oil to leak out and accumulate in the vicinity of the furnace and create a fire hazard. A trailer that is sold with such a defect is not of ‘merchantable quality’, within the meaning of the statute. “But before an implied warranty can arise, the goods must have been ‘bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description.’ That was done here. The sales contract executed by Willman and appellants specified that he was purchasing a ‘55 x 10' 2 Bedroom Mobilehome, Great Lakes Make, SA-FK-Winthrop Model”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Whether notice is reasonable is a matter to be resolved by the jury unless it appears that only one finding can legally be derived from the circumstances.” (Emphasis added). Davidson v. Wee, supra, 93 Ariz. at 200 , 379 P.2d at 749 .”
    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.