Clark v. Chrysler Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “Here, Mrs. Clark has produced evidence that there were feasible alternative designs to the Chrysler K latch system that would have prevented Mr. Clark's injuries. Mr. Gilberg testified that several simple fixes would have prevented bypass failure and that a state-of-the-art or state-of-the-industry latch would not have allowed the door to come open. Many of the alternative latch systems proposed by Mr. Gilberg had actually been in use by vehicle manufacturers for many years prior to the time the Dodge Ram was manufactured.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jackson v. E-Z-Go Div. of Textron, Inc.

2. “[I]t is not necessary to prove, as Chrysler argues, that the prior accidents involved a vehicle identical to the one driven by [plaintiff] or that all of the circumstances of the accident are identical.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nemir v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp.

3. “automobile manufacturers are generally on notice that their reckless conduct resulting in death could trigger a substantial punitive damages award.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Clark v. Chrysler Corp.