Porter v. Eckert’s Empirical Analysis
465 F.2d 1307 · 1972
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently July 1991
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Tri-State Oil Tool Industries, Inc. v. Delta Marine Drilling Co. · Planters Manufacturing Co. v. Protection Mutual Insurance · Cleveland J. Stockton and Dorothy Altman Stockton v. John A. Altman, and Eleanor Altman Curran
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The court may submit to the jury, together with appropriate forms for a general verdict, written interrogatories upon one or more issues of fact the decision of which is necessary to a verdict. The court shall give such explanation or instruction as may be necessary to enable the jury both to make answers to the interrogatories and to render a general verdict, and the court shall direct the jury both to make written answers and to render a general verdict. When the general verdict and the answers are harmonious, the appropriate judgment upon the verdict and answers shall be entered pursuant to Rule 58. When the answers are consistent with each other but one or more in inconsistent with the general verdict, judgment may be entered pursuant to Rule 58 in accordance with the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict, or the court may return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or may order a new trial. When the answers are inconsistent with each other and one or more is likewise inconsistent with the general verdict, judgment shall not be entered, but the court shall return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or shall order a new trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Porter v. Eckert“Q. After your examination of the unit and your observation of the disassembling of the unit, and your arrival in your own opinion of what the problem, the short, was, do you have an opinion as to the cause of the electrical short? A. It is my opinion that some damage was done to the particular terminal at some point in the assembly of the unit. There is no explanation for any damage being done to an internal terminal subsequent to the assembly of the unit. And since I was unable to observe this damage on the exterior surface of that terminal before the unit was disassembled, it led me to the conclusion [SR.214] that the damage which caused the trouble had originated on the inside of the terminal, which would be explainable only on the basis of some damage during the assembly of the unit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Porter v. Eckert“MDC has overlooked the important distinction between proof of the cause of the defect, which is not an element of a plaintiff's case, and proof that the defect existed when the product left the manufacturer's control. 3 This rule provides:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Porter v. Eckert
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.