Ucc v. P 2-J Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
8 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Trinity Industries, Inc. v. McKinnon Bridge Co. (2001), Soto v. PNC Bank (In Re Soto) (1998)
8 district · 6 state decisions
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 East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc. · Kassab v. Soya · Richerson v. Jones · Saratoga Fishing Co. v. J. M. Martinac & Co. · Duquesne Light Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We are aware that a number of courts in addition to the district court we are reviewing have ruled that the economic loss doctrine bars tort recovery where the “other property” damaged was always likely to have been injured upon the failure of “the product” itself. See, e.g., Dakota Gasification Co. v. Pascoe Bldg. Systems, 91 F.3d 1094, 1099 (8th Cir.1996) (applying North Dakota law); Detroit Edison Co. v. NABCO, Inc., 35 F.3d 236 (6th Cir.1994)(applying Michigan law); Wellsboro Hotel Co. v. Prins, 894 F.Supp. 170 (M.D.Pa.l995)(applying Pennsylvania law); Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Huls America, Inc., 893 F.Supp. 465, 469 (E.D.Pa.l995)(applying Pennsylvania law); Neibarger v. Universal Cooperatives, Inc., 439 Mich. 512 , 486 N.W.2d 612 (1992)(applying Michigan law). However, it is also true that numerous courts have rejected this expansion of the economic loss doctrine. See, e.g., Saratoga Fishing Co. v. Marco Seattle Inc., 69 F.3d 1432, 1445 (9th Cir.1995), aff 'd on other grounds, 520 U.S. 875 , 117 S.Ct. 1783 , 138 L.Ed.2d 76 (1997); Alliance Imaging, Inc. v. Picker Int’l Inc., 1993 WL 76209 (E.D.Pa.1993); Jet Plastica Industries, Inc. v. Goodson Polymers, Inc., 1992 WL 17207 (E.D.Pa.1992). We find the latter cases more persuasive, and, particularly after Sara-toga Fishing, we are confident that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would not conclude that the economic loss doctrine precludes recovery for damage to the contents of a warehouse when the warehouse collapses.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t seems apparent to us that if the fishing equipment foreseeably added to the ship by the initial user in Saratoga Fishing [, 520 U.S. at 880 , 117 S.Ct. 1783 ,] did not become a part of the ‘product itself,’ it necessarily follows that the inventory foreseeably stored by the initial user in the warehouse here did not become a part of the warehouse itself. Accordingly, we believe that the district court’s ‘integration’ theory in this case is inconsistent with Saratoga Fishing and that it follows a fortiori from the holding in Saratoga Fishing that 2-J can recover for the loss of its inventory and other property stored in its warehouse.”
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.