Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 36 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Page Petroleum, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Page Petroleum, Inc. Anchor | green | “something must appear on the face of the contract to attract the attention of a reasonable person when he looks at it.” | 7 |
| 2 | Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Page Petroleum, Inc. | green | “the conspicuous requirement mandates 'that something must appear on the face of the contract to attract the attention of a reasonable person when he looks at it.” | 7 |
| 3 | Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Page Petroleum, Inc. | green | “that something must appear on the face of the contract to attract the attention of a reasonable person when he looks at it.” | 6 |
| 4 | Head v. U.S. Inspect DFW, Inc. | green | “an express warranty is created when a seller makes an affirmation of fact or a promise to the purchaser that relates to the sale and warrants a conformity to the affirmation as promised.” | 4 |
| 5 | Garcia v. Texas Instruments, Inc. | green | “has delegated the question of privity to our courts.” | 4 |
| 6 | Transmission Exchange Inc. v. Long | green | “where the litigant moves the trial court to enter a judgment, and the trial court enters the judgment, the litigant cannot later complain of that judgment, period.” | 4 |
| 7 | National Bugmobiles, Inc. v. Jobi Properties | green | “that direct privity of contract is not required in order to sustain a breach of express-warranty claim for purely economic losses” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.