Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 972 F.2d 190 - Hendricks v. Callahan

Hendricks v. Callahan’s Empirical Analysis

972 F.2d 190 · 1992

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently August 2018

4 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

60199220002010decided

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 Salve Regina College v. Russell · CBS Inc. v. Ziff-Davis Publishing Co. · Financial Timing Publications, Inc. v. Compugraphic Corp. · Peterson v. Bendix Home Systems, Inc. · Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc.

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

  1. “Minnesota would adopt the 'modern view' which provides that the buyer's reliance on the warranty is 'wholly irrelevant.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In sum, because this transaction is not governed by the UCC, because Peterson [v. Bendix Home Systems, 318 N.W.2d 50 (Mirin.1982) ] and its progeny are UCC cases, because the Minnesota Supreme Court has affirmed the use of jury instructions which require reliance in a related context, and because the Minnesota Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Midland ... appellants must show some form of reliance on the warranty to succeed.”
    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.