3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 10 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 Weinstat v. Dentsply International, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Weinstat v. Dentsply International, Inc. Anchor | green | “(1) the seller's statements constitute an affirmation of fact or promise or a description of the goods; (2) the statement was part of the basis of the bargain; and (3) the warranty was breached.” | 4 |
| 2 | In re Conagra Foods, Inc. | green | “statement or representation to provide the basis for an express warranty claim, it still must meet the threshold requirement of being material to a reasonable consumer.” | 3 |
| 3 | Davis v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc. | green | “this inference may be established either (a) by alleging facts to show that defendants had both motive and opportunity to commit fraud, or (b) by alleging facts that constitute strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness.” | 3 |
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.