Richards v. Michelin Tire Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
21 F.3d 1048 · 1994
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Mangold v. California Public Utilities Commission (1995), Maiz v. Virani (2001)
17 federal appellate · 7 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 Bonner v. City of Prichard · Cryts v. French · Jannotti v. United States · United New York & New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Ass'n v. Halecki · Pauley v. Beth-Energy Mines, 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e have repeatedly held that the issue of punitive damages should not go to the jury when a manufacturer takes steps to warn the plaintiff of the potential danger that injured him; such acts bar a finding of wantonness.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) The plaintiffs injuries would have been eliminated or in some way reduced by the use of the alternative design; and that (b) taking into consideration such factors as the intended use of the [product], its styling, cost, and desirability, its safety aspects, the foreseeability of the particular accident, the likelihood of injury and the probable seriousness of the injury if that accident occurred, the obviousness of the defect, and the manufacturer’s ability to eliminate the defect, the utility of the alternative design outweighed the utility of the alternative actually used.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“With regard to the wanton design claim, the question we are confronted with is whether [defendant] consciously and intentionally refused to employ available technology (some safer practical alternative design) in reckless disregard of the fact that its failure to do so made the risk [of harm] probable or more likely. As [plaintiff] has failed to show the existence of a safer practical alternative design, it cannot be said that [defendant] refused to use such a design. Consequently, insufficient evidence supported [plaintiffs] wanton design claim.”
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.