Long v. Deere & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 24 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently August 2003 · most notably Mohr v. State Bank of Stanley (1987), Armentrout v. FMC Corp. (1992)
2 federal appellate · 24 district · 16 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 Wooderson v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. · Jones v. Hittle Service, Inc. · Hampton v. State Highway Commission · Ratterree v. Bartlett · Garrett v. Nissen Corporation
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In any product liability claim any duty on the part of the manufacturer or seller of the product to warn or protect against a danger or hazard which could or did arise in the use or misuse of such product, and any duty to have properly instructed in the use of such product shall not extend: (a) To warnings, protecting against or instructing with regard to those safeguards, precautions and actions which a reasonable user or consumer of the product, with the training, experience, education and any special knowledge the user or consumer did, should or was required to possess, could and should have taken for such user or consumer or others, under all the facts and circumstances; (b) to situations where the safeguards, precautions and actions would or should have been taken by a reasonable user or consumer of the product similarly situated exercising reasonable care, caution and procedure; or (c) to warnings, protecting against or instructing with regard to dangers, hazards or risks which are patent, open or obvious and which should have been realized by a reasonable user or consumer of the product.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Chattel Known to be Dangerous for Intended Use. One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for another to use is subject to liability to those whom the supplier should expect to use the chattel with the consent of the other or to be endangered by its probable use, for physical harm caused by the use of the chattel in the manner for which and by a person for whose use it is supplied, if the supplier (a) knows or has reason to know that the chattel is or is likely to be dangerous for the use for which it is supplied, and (b) has no reason to believe that those for whose use the chattel is supplied will realize its dangerous condition, and (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to inform them of its dangerous condition or of the facts which make it likely to be danger ous.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It would seem to be an obvious truism to state that there is no duty on the part of a manufacturer or seller to give'a warning of a product-connected danger where the person who claims to be entitled to the warning actually knows of the danger. The case law also clearly supports the view that a person is not entitled to be warned about something he already knows.””
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.