8 Mississippi opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Austin v. Will-Burt Co.green2 sentences2006See also Foster v. Copiah County Co-op., 246 Miss. 218 , 148 So.2d 702, 707 (1963) ("If a statement was unknown to the buyer at the time the sale was completed, it is obvious that there can be ... [no] detrimental reliance...."); Austin v. Will-Burt Co., 232 F.Supp.2d 682, 687 (N.D.Miss.2002), aff'd, 361 F.3d 862 (5th Cir.2004) (plaintiffs failed to prove they relied on manufacturer's statements when purchasing the mast, so court granted summary judgment on express warranty claim). ¶ 30. 2003See also Foster v. Copiah County Co-op, 148 So.2d 702, 707 (Miss. 1963) (“If a statement was unknown to the buyer at the time the sale was completed, it is obvious that there can be . . . [no] detrimental reliance . . . .”); Austin v. Will-Burt Co., 232 F.Supp.2d 682, 687 (N.D. | 2 | 2 |
Foster v. Copiah County Co-Operative, AAL.green2 sentences2006See also Foster v. Copiah County Co-op., 246 Miss. 218 , 148 So.2d 702, 707 (1963) ("If a statement was unknown to the buyer at the time the sale was completed, it is obvious that there can be ... [no] detrimental reliance...."); Austin v. Will-Burt Co., 232 F.Supp.2d 682, 687 (N.D.Miss.2002), aff'd, 361 F.3d 862 (5th Cir.2004) (plaintiffs failed to prove they relied on manufacturer's statements when purchasing the mast, so court granted summary judgment on express warranty claim). ¶ 30. 2006See also Foster v. Copiah County Co-op., 246 Miss. 218 , 148 So.2d 702, 707 (1963) ("If a statement was unknown to the buyer at the time the sale was completed, it is obvious that there can be ... [no] detrimental reliance...."); Austin v. Will-Burt Co., 232 F.Supp.2d 682, 687 (N.D.Miss.2002), aff'd, 361 F.3d 862 (5th Cir.2004) (plaintiffs failed to prove they relied on manufacturer's statements when purchasing the mast, so court granted summary judgment on express warranty claim). ¶ 30. | 2 | 2 |
General Motors Corp. v. Peguesgreen2 sentences2006The Court of Appeals as well would have required an expert in the technical aspects of air bags to determine if the collision was "hard enough." But see, e.g., General Motors Corp. v. Pegues, 738 So.2d 746, 751-53 (Miss.Ct.App.1998) (trial court did not abuse discretion in allowing local mechanic to offer expert testimony for the plaintiff in products liability case as to the cause and nature of the accident). 2003The Court of Appeals as well would have required an expert in the technical aspects of air bags to determine if the collision was “hard enough.” But see, e.g., General Motors Corp. v. Pegues, 738 So.2d 746, 751-53 (Miss. | 2 | 2 |
Royal Lincoln-Mercury Sales v. Wallacegreen1 sentence2014In Guerdon Industries, Inc. v. Gentry, 531 So.2d 1202, 1205 (Miss.1988), this Court, when discussing an express warranty issued during the sale of a mobile home, stated: “The area of express warranty law is governed by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 2301-2312 (1982) ... and various provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, as codified under Mississippi Law.” In Royal Lincoln-Mercury Sales, Inc. v. Wallace, 415 So.2d 1024, 1027 (Miss.1982), this Court recognized that the elements of proof for a breach-of-warranty claim under the Magnuson-Mos | 1 | 1 |
Guerdon Industries, Inc. v. Gentrygreen1 sentence2014In Guerdon Industries, Inc. v. Gentry, 531 So.2d 1202, 1205 (Miss.1988), this Court, when discussing an express warranty issued during the sale of a mobile home, stated: “The area of express warranty law is governed by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 2301-2312 (1982) ... and various provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, as codified under Mississippi Law.” In Royal Lincoln-Mercury Sales, Inc. v. Wallace, 415 So.2d 1024, 1027 (Miss.1982), this Court recognized that the elements of proof for a breach-of-warranty claim under the Magnuson-Mos | 1 | 1 |
Keller v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.green1 sentence2014July 30, 2004) (finding that the statute of limitations in Delaware’s UCC applies to Magnuson-Moss claims); Poli v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 349 NJ.Super. 169, 793 A.2d 104, 111 (2002) (“[T]he statutory cause of action that is most analogous to a claim under the [Magnuson-Moss] Act is a breach of warranty claim under the UCC.... ”); Keller v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 733 A.2d 642, 644 (Pa.1999) (finding that UCC statute of limitations applied to Magnuson-Moss claim); Snyder v. Boston Whaler, Inc., 892 F.Supp. 955, 960 (W.D.Mich.1994) (“[Borrowing the state Uniform Commercial Code statute of | 1 | 1 |
Snyder v. Boston Whaler, Inc.green1 sentence2014July 30, 2004) (finding that the statute of limitations in Delaware’s UCC applies to Magnuson-Moss claims); Poli v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 349 NJ.Super. 169, 793 A.2d 104, 111 (2002) (“[T]he statutory cause of action that is most analogous to a claim under the [Magnuson-Moss] Act is a breach of warranty claim under the UCC.... ”); Keller v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 733 A.2d 642, 644 (Pa.1999) (finding that UCC statute of limitations applied to Magnuson-Moss claim); Snyder v. Boston Whaler, Inc., 892 F.Supp. 955, 960 (W.D.Mich.1994) (“[Borrowing the state Uniform Commercial Code statute of | 1 | 1 |
Poli v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.green1 sentence2014July 30, 2004) (finding that the statute of limitations in Delaware’s UCC applies to Magnuson-Moss claims); Poli v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 349 NJ.Super. 169, 793 A.2d 104, 111 (2002) (“[T]he statutory cause of action that is most analogous to a claim under the [Magnuson-Moss] Act is a breach of warranty claim under the UCC.... ”); Keller v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 733 A.2d 642, 644 (Pa.1999) (finding that UCC statute of limitations applied to Magnuson-Moss claim); Snyder v. Boston Whaler, Inc., 892 F.Supp. 955, 960 (W.D.Mich.1994) (“[Borrowing the state Uniform Commercial Code statute of | 1 | 1 |
Vicksburg Partners, LP v. Stephensgreen1 sentence2007See, e.g., Vicksburg Partners, L.P. v. Stephens, 911 So.2d 507, 523-24 (Miss.2005). [7] Blakeney's first amended complaint added (in the place of the original breach of warranty claim) the statutory revocation of contract pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
East Ford, Inc. v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2007Because of the disposition of today's case, we need not address this claim, which was also asserted by Blakeney as an issue on appeal. [8] Of course, this goes to the second prong ("legal constraints external to the agreement") discussed in East Ford, 826 So.2d at 713-17 . 2004Because of the disposition of today’s case, we need not address this claim, which was also asserted by Blakeney as an issue on appeal. 8 Of course, this goes to the second prong (“legal constraints external to the agreement”) discussed in East Ford, 826 So. 2d at 713-17 . | 2 | 2004–2007 |
Palmer v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006The gravamen of a breach of warranty claim in products liability litigation is that the plaintiff's harm must have resulted, at least in part, from the plaintiff's reliance on what the warranty states, and when a plaintiff specifically bases such a claim on statements in an unread owner's manual, "nothing in the manual can be said to have contributed to the accident or to damages in [the] case." Id. at 1086 . 2003The gravamen of a breach of warranty claim in products liability litigation is that the plaintiff’s harm must have resulted, at least in part, from the plaintiff’s reliance on what the warranty states, and when a plaintiff specifically bases such a claim on statements in an unread owner’s manual, “nothing in the manual can be said to have contributed to the accident or to damages in [the] case.” Id. at 1086 . | 2 | 2003–2006 |
Prentis v. Yale Manufacturing Co.
green
2 sentences1999Prentis, 365 N.W.2d at 186 . 1996Prentis, 365 N.W.2d at 186 . | 2 | 1996–1999 |
Armour & Co. v. McMillain
green
2 sentences2018Second in, Armour & Co. v. McMillain , 171 Miss. 199 , 155 So. 218 (1934), the manufacturer of the sausage was sued under a breach-of-warranty claim when the plaintiff became sick from eating the sausage. 2018Second in, Armour & Co. v. McMillain , 171 Miss. 199 , 155 So. 218 (1934), the manufacturer of the sausage was sued under a breach-of-warranty claim when the plaintiff became sick from eating the sausage. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Austin v. Will-Burt Co.
green
1 sentence2006See also Foster v. Copiah County Co-op., 246 Miss. 218 , 148 So.2d 702, 707 (1963) ("If a statement was unknown to the buyer at the time the sale was completed, it is obvious that there can be ... [no] detrimental reliance...."); Austin v. Will-Burt Co., 232 F.Supp.2d 682, 687 (N.D.Miss.2002), aff'd, 361 F.3d 862 (5th Cir.2004) (plaintiffs failed to prove they relied on manufacturer's statements when purchasing the mast, so court granted summary judgment on express warranty claim). ¶ 30. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.