Frank Borowicz v. Chicago Mastic Company, Frank Borowicz v. Chicago Adhesive Products Company’s Empirical Analysis
367 F.2d 751 · 1966
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently January 2014 · most notably Lindsay v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1980), Collins Securities Corp. v. Securities & Exchange Commission (1977)
17 federal appellate · 9 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 MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co. · Jamieson v. Woodward · Jamieson v. Woodward & Lothrop · Huset v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. · White v. . Lehigh Valley R.R. 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`the premise of pecuniary liability for tort is not the mere fact of injury, but injury plus fault. It would be totally unreasonable to require that a manufacturer warn or protect against every injury which may ensue from a mishap in the use of his product.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(N)o one needs notice of that which he already knows.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘Plaintiff had read this label at least eight times previously and it needs to be read as a whole. He may not now lift certain words or phrases out of the context of that familiar label, and thereby seek to impose liability on the manufacturer for injuries occasioned by his own negligence.’ ””
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.