Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 322 NW2D 873 - Fajardo v. Cammack

Fajardo v. Cammack’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
June 2005
most recently cited

1 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 2005

1 district · 13 state decisions

100198219902000decided

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 Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. · Farner v. Paccar, Inc. · Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc. · Engberg v. Ford Motor Company · Jerke v. Delmont State Bank

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

  1. “It is the jury, not the court, which is the fact-finding body. It weighs the contradictory evidence and inferences, judges the credibility of witnesses, receives expert instructions, and draws the ultimate conclusion as to the facts. The very essence of its function is to select from among conflicting inferences and conclusions that which it considers most reasonable.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The chief elements which a plaintiff must prove in a case involving strict liability in tort are (1) the defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the defendant's product, including the defendant's connection with the product, and (2) a causal connection between such condition and the plaintiff's injuries or damages.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict can be considered only when the moving party at the trial requested a directed verdict and thus the motion in effect brings before the trial court for review a second time the grounds urged in support of the motion for directed verdict.”
    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.