ACandS Inc. v. Asner’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Gourdine v. Crews (2008), Darcars Motors of Silver Spring, Inc. v. Borzym (2004)
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 58 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 Innkeepers of New Castle, Inc. v. Maley · Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia · Phipps v. General Motors Corp. · Hodge v. South Carolina · 109 Wash. 2d 235 - Lockwood v. a C & S, Inc.
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A factual defense may be based on the negligible effect of a claimant’s exposure to the defendant’s product, or on the negligible effect of the asbestos content of a defendant’s product, or both. In such a case the degree of exposure to a non-party’s product and the extent of the asbestos content of the non-party’s product may be relevant to demonstrating the non-substantial nature of the exposure to, or of the asbestos content of, the defendant’s product. But, a defendant would not ordinarily generate a jury issue on lack of ' substantial factor causation only by showing the dangerousness of a non-party’s product to which the claimant was exposed. Ordinarily a defendant would have to follow up the evidence of exposure to the products of non-parties with evidence tending to prove that the defendant’s product was not unreasonably dangerous or was not a substantial causal factor. Under these circumstances the proposition that the defendant’s product is not a substantial cause may be made more probable by evidence tending to prove that the claimant’s disease was caused by the products of one or more non-parties. See, e.g., Becker v. Baron Bros., 138 N.J. 145 , 649 A.2d 613 (1994) (whether processed ehrysotile in brake products posed a risk of causing mesothelioma in users was a sharply disputed issue of fact at trial, so that trial court erred in instructing as a matter of law that the products were defective without a warning).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“fundamental rule of appellate practice under which the appellate court has no duty independently to search through the record for error” and its resulting consequence,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“'State of the art includes all of the available knowledge on a subject at a given time, and this includes scientific, medical, engineering, and any other knowledge that may be available. State of the art includes the element of time: What is known and when was this knowledge available.'”
2 later decisions 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.