Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 237 F.3d 614 - Randy Peck

Randy Peck’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
March 2020
most recently cited

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 2020

160200120102020decided

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 Smith v. Ameritech · Reid v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · J. D. Behles & Associates v. Angel Project I, Ltd. · Owens v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. · 176 Mich. App. 181 - Reeves v. Cincinnati, 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged danger, (2) had no reason to believe that consumers would know of this danger, and (3) failed to exercise reasonable care to inform consumers of the danger.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) the severity of the injury was foreseeable by the manufacturer; (2) the likelihood of occurrence of the injury was foreseeable by the manufacturer at the time of distribution of the product; (3) there was a reasonable alternative design available; (4) the alternative design was practicable; (5) the alternative design would have reduced the foreseeable risk of harm posed by the product; and (6) the omission of the alternative design rendered the product not reasonably safe.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged danger, (2) had no reason to believe that consumers would know of this danger, and (3) failed to exercise reasonable care to inform consumers of the danger. In addition, in a negligence action, a plaintiff must establish causation and damages. Where causation is lacking, the question of a duty to warn need not be addressed.”
    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.