Simonetta v. Viad Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 109 Wash. 2d 235 - Lockwood v. a C & S, Inc. · 42 Wash. 2d 316 - McLeod v. Grant County School District No. 128 · 90 Wash. 2d 9 - Terhune v. A. H. Robins Co. · 107 Wash. 2d 761 - Reichelt v. Johns-Manville Corp. · 117 Wash. 2d 747 - Ayers v. Johnson & Johnson Baby Products Co.
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because "the duty to warn is limited to those in the chain of distribution of the hazardous product," the defendants here had no duty to warn of the danger of exposure to asbestos in the insulation applied to their products. None of the defendants were in the chain of distribution of the exterior insulation applied to their products, and under our analysis in Simonetta, the plaintiff's negligence claims based upon exposure to the insulation applied to the defendants' products were properly dismissed on summary judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a] manufacturer's duty of ordinary care includes a duty to warn of hazards involved in the use of a product, which are or should be known to the manufacturer.”
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.