Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 295 F.2d 547 - Edwards v. Mazor Masterpieces, Inc.

Edwards v. Mazor Masterpieces, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

295 F.2d 547 · 1961

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
4
states following
December 2000
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 2000

8 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

8019611970198019902000decided

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 Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp. · Brady v. Southern Railway Co. · Milwaukee and Saint Paul Railway Company v. Kellogg · Dewey v. Clark · The Germanic

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

  1. “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 know 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 dangerous.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““One who supplies a chattel for another to use is liable for bodily harm caused by the intended use if he ‘ (a) knows, or from facts known to him should realize, that the chattel is or is likely to be dangerous for the use for which it is supplied; (b) and 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 so.’ ””
    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.