Diehl v. Blaw-Knox’s Empirical Analysis
360 F.3d 426 · 2004
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc. · Dixon v. International Harvester Co. · McQueeney v. Wilmington Trust Co. · Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Div., Duff-Norton · Pau v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co.
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he words `an injury or harm allegedly caused by' were added to clarify that the rule applies only to changes made after the occurrence that produced the damages giving rise to the action. Evidence of measures taken by the defendant prior to the `event' causing `injury or harm' do not fall within the exclusionary scope of Rule 407 even if they occurred after the manufacture or design of the product.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“assessment of the dangers of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues are procedural matters that govern in a federal court notwithstanding a state policy to the contrary”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“products are to be evaluated at the time of distribution when examining a claim of product defect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.