Sharp v. Wyatt, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
6 district · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably Vitanza v. Upjohn Co. (2001), Lamontagne v. Ei Du Pont De Nemours & Company Inc (1994)
6 district · 67 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 Connell v. Colwell · Wadia Enterprises, Inc. v. Hirschfeld · Kirby v. Planning Board of Review · Stankiewicz v. Zoning Board of Appeals · Whisper Wind Development Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) A product seller may be subject to liability for harm caused to a claimant who proves by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the product was defective in that adequate warnings or instructions were not provided. (b) In determining whether instructions or warnings were required and, if required, whether they were adequate, the trier of fact may consider: (1) The likelihood that the product would cause the harm suffered by the claimant; (2) the ability of the product seller to anticipate at the time of manufacture that the expected product user would be aware of the product risk, and the nature of the potential harm; and (3) the technological feasibility and cost of warnings and instructions. (c) In claims based on this section, the claimant shall prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that if adequate warnings or instructions had been provided, the claimant would not have suffered the harm. (d) A product seller may not be considered to have provided adequate warnings or instructions unless they were devised to communicate with the person best able to take or recommend precautions against the potential harm.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“pursuant to § 52-572q(b), the sophisticated user doctrine . . . is not an affirmative defense,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“were properly resolved in the thoughtful and comprehensive opinion of the Appellate Court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.