Jones v. Allercare, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

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

1. “relevant question in this case will not be whether the products have the capacity to cause harm, but whether the products caused harm and to whom. Thus, the real causation issue in this case is individual, not general, in nature”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, Jeanne Jaros, on Their Own Behalf and as Representatives of Classes of Similarly Situated Persons v. E.I. Dupont, in Re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, E.S. Criswell, Arel Quessenberry, Luther Stacy, Jr., Raymond L. Swaim, Betty L. Swaim, James R. Swaim and John S. Swaim, on Their Own Behalf and as Representatives of Classes of Similarly Situated Persons v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and General Electric Company, in Re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, Chuck Seaman, as Personal Representative for Frieda Theresa Seaman, Deceased Mark Seaman, Jr. Chuck Seaman v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, a Delaware Corporation General Electric Company, a New York Corporation, in Re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, Andra L. Evenson v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in Re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, Kathryn Hamilton, Diana Cottam, James and Janet Boyd and Connie Soper, on Their Own Behalf and as Representatives of Classes of Similarly Situated Persons v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company General Electric Co. Unc, Inc., Atlantic Richfield Company, Rockwell International Corporation, Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Westinghouse Hanford Company, in Re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, Rosemary Miller v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours General Electric · Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation v. Ei Es

2. “the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superi- or to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The matters pertinent to the findings include: (A) the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sweet v. Pfizer

3. “Each plaintiff must individually prove that he or she experienced personal injuries and/or property damage which was proximately caused by the use of defendant’s products. The named plaintiffs’ claims are typical only if what is needed to prove them is the same as what is needed to prove the claims of the proposed class.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Taylor v. CSX Transportation, Inc.