Zuchowicz v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
140 F.3d 381 · 1998
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 10 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 118 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB (1999), Amorgianos v. National Railroad Passenger (2002)
32 federal appellate · 10 district · 14 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
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 355 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act)
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · General Electric Co. v. Joiner · Frye v. United States · 26 Cal. 3d 588 - Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories · 33 Cal. 2d 80 - Summers v. Tice
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 118 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f (a) a negligent act was deemed wrongful because that act increased the chances that a particular type of accident would occur, and (b) a mishap of that very sort did happen, this was enough to support a finding by the trier of fact that the negligent behavior caused the harm.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“And whether the defendant’s negligence consists of the violation of some statutory safety regulation, or the breach of a plain common law duty of care, the court can scarcely overlook the fact that the injury which has in fact occurred is precisely the sort of thing that proper care on the part of the defendant would be intended to prevent, and accordingly allow a certain liberality to the jury in drawing its conclusion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[I]t is well established that causation “may be proved by circumstantial evidence,” ... and that “[t]he causal relation between an injury and its later physical effects may be established by the direct opinion of a physician, by his deduction by the process of eliminating causes other than the traumatic agency, or by his opinion based upon a hypothetical question.”
2 later decisions 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.