111 Mich. App. 343 - Pelc v. Bendix MacHine Tool Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions

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

1. “(1) there is a basic continuation of the seller corporation’s enterprise reflected in a continuity of management, personnel, physical location, assets, and general business operations of the predecessor corporation; (2) the predecessor corporation ceases its ordinary business operations, liquidates, and dissolves as soon as legally and practically possible; (3) the purchasing corporation assumes those liabilities and obligations of the seller ordinarily necessary for the uninterrupted continuation of normal business operations of the selling corporation. (4) the purchasing corporation holds itself out to the world as the effective continuation of the seller corporation.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Neagos v. Valmet-Appleton, Inc. · 592 F. Supp. 2d 776 - Van Doren v. Coe Press Equipment Corp.

2. “(1) when the purchasing corporation expressly or implicitly agreed to assume the seller’s liabilities; (2) when the transaction amounts to a consolidation or merger of the purchaser and seller corporations; (3) when the purchaser corporation is merely a continuation of the seller corporation; [or] (4) when the transaction is fraudulent.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 725 F. Supp. 1446 - Kelley v. Thomas Solvent Co. · 814 F. Supp. 624 - City Environmental, Inc. v. U.S. Chemical Co.

3. ““In the instant case, defendant admits that through its machine history records it had constructive knowledge of the existence of the broach machine on which Gary Pele was injured. However, there is nothing in the record to indicate that defendant had serviced the machine in question or had any control over it. There is also no indication that defendant or any employee of defendant, including Uber, was aware of any defect in this machine prior to Gary Pelc’s injury. Because plaintiff has failed to establish that defendant serviced the machine in question or that defendant had knowledge of a defect in the machine prior to Pelc’s injury, summary judgment with regard to this count was proper.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 9 Kan. App. 2d 254 - Stratton v. Garvey International, Inc.