Thiele v. Faygo Beverage, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Webb v. Jarvis (1991), Rahmig v. Mosley MacHinery Co. (1987)
3 federal appellate · 56 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 2801 (Petroleum Marketing Pract)
Relies on Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. · Miller v. Griesel · New England Coal & Coke Co. v. Northern Barge Corporation · Ayr-Way Stores, Inc. v. Chitwood Ex Rel. Chitwood · Neal, Admr. v. Home Builders, 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a purchaser; (2) any individual who uses or consumes the product; (3) any other person who, while acting for or on behalf of the injured party, was in possession and control of the product in question; or (4) any bystander injured by the product who would reasonably be expected to be in the vicinity of the product during its reasonably expected use.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“The duty of reasonable care is not, of course, owed to the world at large, but rather to those who might reasonably be foreseen as being subject to injury by the breach of the duty.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Defendant does not suggest that the manufacturer of a product owes no duty of care to a "middle man” who comes into contact with the product after it has entered the stream of commerce but before it reaches the ultimate user or consumer of the product. Thus, defendant would be entitled to summary judgment on the negligence count of the complaint only if it could meet its burden of demonstrating that the material facts of this case show, without issue, that it did not breach its duty of care owed to plaintiff or that such breach was not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury.”
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.