Patch v. Stanley Works’s Empirical Analysis
448 F.2d 483 · 1971
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 11 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently October 2007 · most notably Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp. (1975), McKenna v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1980)
15 federal appellate · 11 district · 8 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Hanna v. Plumer · Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, Inc. · Babcock v. Jackson
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property if (a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. (2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although (a) the seller has exercised all possible care in preparation and sale of his product, and (b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““even though a state’s relevant law is unclear or difficult to ascertain, it is still our duty to render a decision by attempting to apprehend the result that that state’s courts would reach, see Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, Inc., 350 U.S. 198 , 76 S.Ct. 273 , 100 L.Ed. 199 (1956), and where the relevant law is interstitial, we may look for guidance ‘to such sources as the Restatements of Law, treatises and law review commentaries, and the “majority rule” ’.” Patch v. Stanley Works, 448 F.2d 483 (2 Cir. 1971), citing C. Wright, Federal Courts § 58 at 208 (1963).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“But, Comment (h) to Restatement, Torts 2d, § 402A, says, Where, however, he [the manufacturer] has reason to anticipate that danger may result from a particular use, as where a drug is sold which is safe only in limited doses, he may be required to give adequate warning of the danger * * * and a product sold without such warning is in a defective condition. That is, the”
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.