Smith v. Ariens Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 39 district · 83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp. (1991), Payton v. Abbott Labs (1982)
29 federal appellate · 39 district · 83 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 Cree v. Goldstein · Larsen v. General Motors Corp. · Carter v. Yardley & Co. · Evans v. General Motors Corp. · Mickle v. Blackmon
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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“duty to design products 'so that they are reasonably fit for the purposes for which they are intended.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[t]he better procedure in a case in which it is a close question whether the standard for granting a directed verdict is met is to allow the matter to go to the jury. If the judge then decides that the jury’s verdict cannot stand, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict may be allowed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In ... these types of cases, a particular product, rather than a line of products, is alleged to be defective because of negligence in the manufacturing process. Because the defect is alleged to have been caused by a manufacturing error affecting only one particular product, to show that the defect is attributable to the manufacturer, the plaintiff must show that it was not caused by intermediaries. In a case alleging negligent design, this showing is not logically necessary since the distribution by the manufacturer of a product with a particular design is sufficient to show that the claimed defective design is attributable to the manufacturer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.