Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 155 F.2d 445 - Mannsz v. Macwhyte Co.

Mannsz v. Macwhyte Co.’s Empirical Analysis

155 F.2d 445 · 1946

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
3
states following
June 1989
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently June 1989 · most notably Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. (1960), 54 Cal. 2d 339 - Peterson v. Lamb Rubber Co. (1960)

17 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions

20019461950196019701980decided

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 Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co. · Ebbert v. Philadelphia Electric Co. · Catani v. Swift & Co. · Scalise v. F. M. Venzie Co., Inc.

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

  1. ““ * * * We think it is clear that whether the approach to the problem be by way of warranty or under the doctrine of negligence, the requirement of privity between the injured party and the manufacturer of the article which has injured him has been obliterated from the Pennsylvania law. * * *””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““A manufacturer who fails to exercise reasonable care in the manufacture of a chattel which, unless carefully made, he should recognize as involving an unreasonable risk of causing substantial bodily harm to those who lawfully use it for a purpose for which it is manufactured and to those whom the supplier should expect to be in the vicinity of its probable use, is subject to liability for bodily harm caused to them by its lawful use in a manner and for a purpose for which it is manufactured.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “is to induce the buyer to purchase the goods.”
    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.