Ucc v. Piotrowski’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 2018
6 district · 3 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 Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp. · Springrose v. Willmore · Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc. · American Business Interiors, Inc. v. Haworth, Inc. · Armstrong v. Mailand
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“did not have actual knowledge of a known risk and he did not make the choice to chance the risk rather than avoid it. [Plaintiff] and other employees had similarly stood or stomped on the lift table without incident for seven months.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. No. 98-2554“Where design defect cases are involved, Minnesota merges the theories of strict liability and negligence.”
1 later decision 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.