Stagg v. Bendix Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 2003
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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 Urie v. Thompson · Locke v. Johns-Manville Corp. · Pierce v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. · Layton v. Allen · Mastellone v. Argo Oil 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It should be emphasized that the application of the Layton rationale to asbestos cases does not result in a “time of discovery” overlay in all such claims. The test is an individual one, with each claimant bearing the burden of demonstrating why the statute is not a bar. In each case the plaintiff must show not only an ignorance of the cause but also that he reacted reasonably and promptly in seeking a diagnosis of any untoward condition which is later confirmed medically as being asbestos related. This issue may prove to be a factual one to be resolved at trial. It is sufficient in this case to note that the plaintiff’s proofs establish his blameless ignorance of an inherently unknowable injury. In summary, I conclude that given the prolonged and inherently unknowable latency of plaintiffs disease, the period of limitations became effective when he was chargeable with knowledge that his physical condition was attributable to asbestos exposure.”
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.