Dagley v. Armstrong Rubber Co.’s Empirical Analysis
344 F.2d 245 · 1965
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably Kirkland v. General Motors Corporation (1974), Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Pruitt (1967)
25 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 state decisions
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 Kahm v. United States · The M/v 'Tungus' v. Skovgaard E · J. I. Case Co. v. Sandefur · Affronti v. United States · Greeno v. Clark Equipment Company
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'The new concept of warranty bases lability on strict liability in tort. This warranty 'is a very different kind of warranty from those usually found in the sale of goods, and * * * it is not subject to the various contract rules which have grown up to surround such sales.' [Quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 402A comment m (1965).] The American Law Institute in May, 1964, discussed the following revision to Section 402A of its Restatement (See-ond), Torts, which revision would adopt this new concept of warranty[.]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Since the jury returned a general verdict on the negligence counts, we cannot determine the basis of its verdicts for defendants. It could have found, e. g., that there were defects in the tire but that defendants were not negligent in designing or manufacturing the tire, or, that Collins was negligent in the operation of the truck and such negligence contributed to the accident. 16”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When impeachment of a witness is by means of statements, inconsistent with the witness's sworn testimony, the weight of authority is that his testimony may not be corroborated by proof of his consistent statements made prior to his alleged inconsistent statements.”
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.