Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 448 NE2D 277 - Hoffman v. E.W. Bliss Co.

Hoffman v. E.W. Bliss Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
states following
January 2022
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably Mitchem v. State (1997), Wingett v. Teledyne Industries, Inc. (1985)

12 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

15019831990200020102020decided

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 Micallef v. Miehle Co. · Bexiga v. Havir Manufacturing Corp. · Ayr-Way Stores, Inc. v. Chitwood Ex Rel. Chitwood · J. I. Case Co. v. Sandefur · 147 Ind. App. 46 - Cornette v. Searjeant Metal Products, Inc.

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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It is clear [that] the manufacturer can never delegate to a second party the duty to warn of the presence of a latent defect and the potential danger in use of the product should the defect become effectively operable.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Sec. 3. Codification and Restatement of Strict Liability in Tort. The common law of this state with respect to strict liability in tort is codified and restated as follows: (a) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to any user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the user or consumer or to his property if that user or consumer is in the class of persons that the seller should reasonably foresee as being subject to the harm caused by the defective condition, and, if: (1) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (2) the product is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. (b) The rule stated in Subsection (a) applies although: (1) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of this product, and (2) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “(a) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to any user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the user or consumer or to his property if that user or consumer is in the class of persons that the seller should reasonably foresee as being subject to the harm caused by the defective condition, and, if:”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.