Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 232 FSUPP2D 682 - Austin v. Will-Burt Co.

Austin v. Will-Burt Co.’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
August 2009
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, Inc. · Thomas v. Price · Lewis v. Glendel Drilling Co.

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

  1. “(a) The manufacturer or seller of the product shall not be liable if the claimant does not prove by the preponderance of the evidence that at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer or seller: (i) 1. The product was defective because it deviated in a matei’ial way from the manufacturer’s specifications or from otherwise identical units man ufactured to the same manufacturing specifications, or 2. The product was defective because it failed to contain adequate warnings or instructions, or 3. The product was designed in a defective manner, or 4. The product breached an express warranty or failed to conform to other express factual representations upon which the claimant justifiably relied in electing to use the product; and (ii) The defective condition rendered the product unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer; and (iii) The defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the product proximately caused the damages for which recovery is sought.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a]n express warranty is any affirmation of fact or promise which concerns the product and becomes part of the basis for the purchase of such a product. Fault does not need to be shown to establish a breach. The plaintiff need only show that the product did not live up to its warranty.”
    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.