Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 131 N.M. 87 - Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Bryco Arms

Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Bryco Arms’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
2
states following
July 2021
most recently cited

11 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Couch v. Astec Industries, Inc. (2002), Rimbert v. Eli Lilly and Co. (2008)

11 district · 10 state decisions

130200120102020decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)

Relies on Self v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · Elmore v. American Motors Corp. · Roth v. Thompson · Torres v. State · Lopez Ex Rel. Lopez v. Maez

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

  1. “The policy underpinnings supporting imposition of strict liability on product manufacturers and suppliers include (1) ensuring that the risk of loss for injury resulting from defective products is borne by the suppliers, principally because they are in a position to absorb the loss by distributing it as a cost of doing business; (2) encouraging suppliers to select reputable and responsible manufacturers who generally design and construct safe products and who generally accept financial responsibility for injuries caused by their defective products; and (3) promoting fairness by ensuring that plaintiffs injured by an unreasonably dangerous product are compensated for their injuries.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The jury instructions covering strict products liability are designed to encourage a risk-benefit calculation by defining "unreasonable risk of injury" in a way which requires the jury to balance meritorious choices for safety made by the manufacturer while minimizing the risk that the public will be deprived needlessly of beneficial products.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “It is sufficient if it occurs with some other cause acting at the same time, which in combination with it, causes the injury.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.