Mazzi v. Greenlee Tool Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “* * * the essence of any doctrine of `substantial alteration,' and if the evidence was such that the jury could reasonably have found that the alterations in question were not a superseding cause of the injury, it was error to direct a verdict on that ground.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hales v. Green Colonial, Inc. · Alberg v. Hardin Marine Corp.

2. “this holding assumes that the substantive law of New York establishes that a manufacturer cannot be held liable under MacPherson if his product was substantially or structurally changed after sale. Presumably, what constitutes a structural change would be a question of law for the court to decide.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Texas Metal Fabricating Company, Inc. v. Northern Gas Products Corporation, the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, and Robert L. Hendrickson, Fluor Corporation, Ltd. v. Northern Gas Products Corporation, the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, and Robert L. Hendrickson

3. “was sufficient to support a jury resolution that the use of the shoe on a Wilson rather than a Greenlee press * * * was intended or that defendant should have reasonably foreseen that its shoe would be so used and that failure to warn of the danger involved in such usage constituted negligence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Simpson Timber Co. v. Parks