Whittaker v. Federal Cartridge Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently July 2010
12 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 147 Ind. App. 46 - Cornette v. Searjeant Metal Products, Inc. · Romano v. Westinghouse Electric Co. · Neofes v. Robertshaw Controls Co. · Candlelight Homes, Inc. v. Zornes
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.
“'[AJluy product liability action must be commenced within two (2) years after the cause of action acerues or within ten (10) years after the delivery of the product to the initial user or consumer.' The plain meaning of the statute is that the period of limitations commences at the time the product is delivered from the manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, or distributor to the first consuming entity. It is clear from the statutory language and definitions that the term 'seller', which "includes a manufacturer, a wholesaler, a retail dealer, or a distributor', and the term 'user or consumer' are mutually exclusive. Marlin and Federal would have us believe, as did the trial court, that the term 'initial user or consumer' in IC 38-1-1.5-5 includes those retailers and other intermediaries. Again, we need only look to the definitions provided in IC 83-1-1.5-2 to dismiss this contention. The term 'seller' encompasses not only manufacturers but also the intermediaries. 'User or consumer' does not. Indiana's Product Liability statute is a codification of the common law of products liability which had been adopted in this state. See, IC 88-1-1.5-8; Cornette v. Searjeant Metal Products, Inc., (1970), 147 Ind.App. 46 , 258 N.E.2d 652 . The common law was essentially an adoption of the Restatement 2d of Torts See. 402A to which an explanatory comment provides in part: '1. User or consumer. In order for the rule stated in this Section to apply, it is not necessary that the ultimate user o”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“'[s]eller' includes a manufacturer, a wholesaler, a retail dealer or a distributor”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“delivery of the product to the initial user or consumer.”
3 later decisions 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.