Karst v. Shur-Co.’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 8 Cal. 3d 121 - Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp. · Lloyd v. General Motors Corp. · Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. · Union Supply Co. v. Pust · 201 Ill. 2d 1 - Sollami v. Eaton
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if (a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. (2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although (a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and (b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Juries are presumed to follow instructions of the circuit court.”
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.