Flaugher v. Cone Automatic Machine Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 2 district · 62 state decisions

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

1. “The general rule in products liability is that a successor corporation’s amenability to suit will depend on the nature of the transaction which gave rise to the change in ownership. Where the transfer is accomplished by means of a statutory merger or consolidation, the liability of the former corporation will be assumed by the new entity. Where there is merely a sale of a corporation’s assets, the buyer corporation is not liable for the seller corporation’s tortious conduct unless one of the following four exceptions applies: (1) the buyer expressly or impliedly agrees to assume such liability; (2) the transaction amounts to a de facto consolidation or merger; (3) the buyer corporation is merely a continuation of the seller corporation; or (4) the transaction is entered into fraudulently for the purpose of escaping liability.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. West American Insurance Co. v. Escher, Inc., Maumee Valley Fabricators, Inc., Russell Cope · State ex rel. Lake Erie Construction Co. v. Industrial Commission

2. “[t]he gravamen of the traditional 'mere continuation' exception is the continuation of the corporate entity rather than the continuation of the business operation.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Berny v. Cs Bell Co Cs Cs · Telxon Corp. v. Smart Media, Unpublished Decision (9-21-2005)

3. “A- successor corporation may acquire a duty to warn where defects in a predecessor’s products are brought to its attention. This duty may arise regardless of the nature of the transaction transferring ownership since it is based not on the corporation’s successor status but on its own knowledge of the defect. The successor corporation must be shown to have had prior knowledge, actual or constructive, of the defect in question. si Accordingly, we hold that a successor corporation has no duty to warn of defects in products manufactured by its predecessor unless the successor is shown to have had pre-existing knowledge, actual or constructive, of the particular defect alleged to exist. , Even where such knowledge is lacking, however, the successor may still be liable for injuries resulting from its predecessor’s product if any of the four exceptions to successor nonliability applies.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hoover v. Recreation Equipment Corp. · 792 F. Supp. 1484 - Hoover v. Recreation Equipment Corp.