Pine v. Eli Lilly & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 26 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably Gantes v. Kason Corp. (1996), Li Fu v. Hong Fu (1999)
19 federal appellate · 26 district · 31 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 Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. of Westfield · Huggins v. Raines · Lopez v. Swyer · Heavner v. Uniroyal, Inc. · Mellk v. Sarahson
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“are likely to promote valid state policies are considered relevant .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"We are, however, completely in agreement with the trial court that New Jersey's interest in compensating its domiciliaries is paramount, that it outweighs our policy of discouraging forum shopping, and thus here tips the scales in favor of applying the New Jersey statute and "discovery rule." Pine , at page 193, 492 A. 2d 1079 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Here there are competing policies that bear on this issue: (1) those relating to the defect-free design and manufacture of a product, and (2) those that regulate the full and fair compensation of the injured party. The former would militate in favor of New Jersey law, the latter for North Carolina’s. Whatever incidental benefits a liability judgment may contribute towards the correction of a defective design or the deterrence -of wrongful conduct with respect to the future distribution of a product, the principal aim of a product liability or other personal injury claim is fairly to compensate the injured party. We therefore determine that that second of the two noted policies must control. Furthermore, the effect of holding New Jersey law to be applicable in a matter of this kind is to subject any corporation conducting manufacturing activities in this state against whom a product liability claim is asserted to suit in New Jersey under New Jersey law. Such a holding would have the undesirable consequence of deterring the conduct of manufacturing operations in this state and would likely result in an unreasonable increase in litigation and thereby unduly burden our courts. Finally, we are satisfied that New Jersey’s contacts with the dispute and with the parties are not sufficient to render New Jersey’s interest in this matter paramount. Although the product allegedly causing the injuries was designed and manufactured in New Jersey and the manufacturer Silk City was once inco”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.