Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 418 F.2d 1010 - Harold Glenn Whitaker v. Harvell-Kilgore Corporation and Day & Zimmerman, Inc., Lura Madden Whitaker v. Harvell-Kilgore Corporation and Day & Zimmerman, Inc.

Harold Glenn Whitaker v. Harvell-Kilgore Corporation and Day & Zimmerman, Inc., Lura Madden Whitaker v. Harvell-Kilgore Corporation and Day & Zimmerman, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

418 F.2d 1010 · 1969

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
2
states following
November 2009
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently November 2009 · most notably Bernick v. Jurden (1982), In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation (1980)

31 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

33019691970198019902000decided

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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Feres v. United States · Keifer v. Reconstruction Finance Corp. · Powell v. United States Cartridge 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) Except as provided hereafter in this section, when a transaction bears a reasonable relation to this State and also to another state or nation the parties may agree that the law either of this State or of such other state or nation shall govern their rights and duties. Failing such agreement this act applies to transactions bearing an appropriate relation to this State.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In that a breach of warranty involving an injury is analogous to a tort action, it is reasonable to conclude that the orthodox “place of injury” rule should apply to warranties.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the plaintiff must be a purchaser either directly from the manufacturer or from some other person such as a wholesaler or retailer.”
    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.