Moss v. Crosman Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
136 F.3d 1169 · 1998
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently January 2020
11 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Whitted v. General Motors Corp. · Koske v. Townsend Engineering Co. · Rogers v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. · Jarrell v. Monsanto Co. · Welch v. Scripto-Tokai 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to a risk of physical harm to an extent beyond that contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases the product with the ordinary knowledge about the product's characteristics common to the community of consumers.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘Unreasonably dangerous,’ for purposes of IC 34-20, refers to any situation in which the use of a product exposes the user or consumer to a risk of physical harm to an extent beyond that contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases the product with the ordinary knowledge about the product’s characteristics common to the community of consumers. Ind.Code § 34-6-2-146. As noted in Moss, supra., Indiana law creates an objective standard under which the court must take into account “the reasonably anticipated knowledge, perception, appreciation, circumstances, and behavior of expected users.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) he or she was harmed by a product; (2) the product was sold “in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to any user or consumer”; (3) the plaintiff was a foreseeable user or consumer; (4) the defendant was in the business of selling the product; and (5) the product reached the consumer or user in the condition it was sold.”
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.