Chrysler Corporation, and Chrysler Motors Corporation v. Robert W. Rhodes, Fred L. Johnson, and Frederick L. Clarke, Jr.’s Empirical Analysis
416 F.2d 319 · 1969
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Wood v. General Motors Corp. (1988), Chrysler Corporation v. Department of Transportation, Jeep Corporation v. Department of Transportation, American Motors Corporation v. Department of Transportation, Ford Motor Company v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Automobile Importers of America v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1972)
22 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 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 Automotive Parts & Accessories Ass'n v. Boyd · Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad · Chrysler Corp. v. Malloy
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“where the state's police power is involved, preemption will not be presumed,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Acceptance of Chrysler’s position might well be contrary to the central purpose of the Act — the promotion of safety on the nation’s highways. To hold that the mere promulgation of a general purpose sought to be achieved by a federal safety standard would preempt all state regulation in a vaguely described area would result in a “no-man’s” land with respect to categories of equipment which the federal standard does not yet seek to regulate. On the other hand, should state regulation prove to be undesirable, preemption may easily be accomplished by the amendment of federal standards to extend their coverage.”
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.