Spangler v. Kranco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
481 F.2d 373 · 1973
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 7 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Zaza v. Marquess and Nell, Inc. (1996), 591 F. Supp. 552 - Goodbar v. Whitehead Bros. (1984)
17 federal appellate · 7 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 Cole v. United States · Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Behymer · 2 Cal. 3d 465 - Pike v. Frank G. Hough Co. · Spruill v. Boyle-Midway, Inc. · Fauver v. Bell
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There was no defect in the crane itself nor in it any latent quality which caused [the plaintiffs] injury. True, there was no bell or warning device but the reasonable need for such equipment depended upon the environment in which it was used by [the employer] after it was received in Richmond. Assuming that its use in the construction phase required a warning device, such a hazard was open and obvious to Reynolds and its personnel and the responsibility rested upon them not upon [the manufacturer].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for another to use is subject to liability to those whom the supplier should expect to use the chattel with the consent of the other or to be endangered by its probably use, for physical harm caused by the use of the chattel in the manner for which and by a person for whose use it is supplied, if the supplier (a) knows or has reason to know that the chattel is or is likely to be dangerous for the use for which it is supplied, and (b) has no reason to believe that those for whose use the chattel is supplied will realize its dangerous condition, and (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to inform them of its dangerous condition or of the facts which make it likely to be dangerous.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.