3 Ohio App. 3d 36 - Hargis v. Doe’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Adams v. Union Carbide Corp. (1984), 85 Ohio App. 3d 300 - Whiston v. Bio-Lab, Inc. (1993)
6 federal appellate · 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 Temple v. Wean United, Inc. · 22 Ohio App. 2d 168 - Sams v. Englewood Ready-Mix Corp. · Burton v. L. O. Smith Foundry Products Co. · Wilhelm v. Globe Solvent 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] supplier is subject to liability for the damages proximately caused by the use of his product, in the manner and for the purpose for which it was supplied, if he fails to exercise reasonable care to give the user information which he has and which he should realize would be necessary to make the use of the product safe.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““One of the hurdles, which is present in all products liability litigation, standing between proof of a negligent failure to warn and ultimate recovery[,] is the necessity of proof of a proximately causal relationship between the negligence and the injury.” Hargis v. Doe (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 36, 37 , 3 OBR 38, 39, 443 N.E.2d 1008, 1010 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he requirement of an adequate warning extends only to those to whom the distributor has reasonable access.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.