476 So. 2d 657 - Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 79 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Boudreau v. Baughman (1988), Berry by and Through Berry v. Beech Aircraft (1985)
7 federal appellate · 79 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 369 So. 2d 572 - Overland Const. Co., Inc. v. Sirmons · 392 So. 2d 874 - Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Co. · Matthews v. Lawnlite Company · 357 So. 2d 401 - Bauld v. JA Jones Const. Co. · 397 So. 2d 671 - Diamond v. ER Squibb and Sons, 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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Actions for products liability and fraud under s. 95.11(3) must be begun within the period prescribed in this chapter, with the period running from the time the facts giving rise to the cause of action were discovered or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence, instead of running from any date prescribed elsewhere in s. 95.11(3), but in any event within 12 years after the date of delivery of the completed product to its original purchaser or within 12 years after the date of the commission of the alleged fraud, regardless of the date the defect in the product or the fraud was or should have been discovered.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage“In Diamond , the defective product, a drug known as diethylstilbestrol produced by Squibb, was ingested during plaintiff mother's pregnancy shortly after purchase of the drug between 1955-1956. The drug's effects, however, did not become manifest until after plaintiff daughter reached puberty. Under these circumstances, if the statute applied, plaintiffs' claim would have been barred even though the injury caused by the product did not become evident until over twelve years after the product had been ingested. The legislature, no doubt, did not contemplate the application of this statute to the facts in Diamond . Were it applicable, there certainly would have been a denial of access to the courts.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“The legislature, in enacting this statute of repose, reasonably decided that perpetual liability places an undue burden on manufacturers, and it decided that twelve years from the date of sale is a reasonable time for exposure to liability for manufacturing of a product.”
2 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.