Simpson v. Coats Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he purpose of the machine was not to prevent a tire from exploding nor to hold it down if it did explode.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hector PACHECO; Maria Pacheco, Appellees, v. the COATS COMPANY, INC.; Hennessy Industries, Inc., Appellants · Pacheco

2. “Neither was there any evidence that the use of the machine caused the explosion nor the accident. This is not a case of faulty design nor defective manufacture. The exploding tire was the proximate cause of the accident, not the tire changing machine suppled by appellee.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pacheco v. Coats Co.