Collins v. Olin Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 7 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (§ 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Gallo v. Prudential Residential Services, Ltd. Partnership · Graham v. Long Island Rail Road · Carlton v. Mystic Transportation, Inc. · White v. ABCO Engineering Corp.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) continuation of the enterprise of the seller corporation so that there is a continuity of management, personnel, physical location, assets and general business operations; (2) continuity of shareholders; (3) the seller corporation ceases its ordinary business operations, liquidates, and dissolves as soon as legally and practically possible; (4) the purchasing corporation assumes those liabilities and obligations of the seller ordinarily necessary for the uninterrupted continuation of normal business operations of the seller corporation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1)where there is an express or implied agreement of assumption; (2) where the transaction amounts to a merger or consolidation of the two Arms, or a “defacto merger”; (3) where the purchaser is a “mere continuation” of the seller; or (4) where the transaction is entered into fraudulently for the purpose of escaping liability for the seller’s obligations.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Sullivan, the Court explained that the product-line exception would be used only to preserve the principles of strict products liability. “[T]he product line exception should be viewed not as some radical expansion of the strict liability rule but as a way of preserving the goals sought to be achieved by the imposition of strict liability in the first place.” Sullivan, 17 Conn. L. Rptr. at 21-22 . Unlike Sullivan and the other Superior Court decisions cited, this case does not involve strict products liability for personal injuries arising from defective goods. Therefore, the underlying policy reasons to apply the product-line exception are not implicated here.”
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.