Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 494 F.2d 458 - Patricia Gates, on Behalf of Herself v. Ford Motor Company, a Corporation

Patricia Gates, on Behalf of Herself v. Ford Motor Company, a Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

494 F.2d 458 · 1974

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
5
states following
July 2010
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently July 2010 · most notably Merrill v. Abbott (In Re Independent Clearing House Co.) (1984), Bruce v. Martin-Marietta Corp. (1976)

18 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions

20019741980199020002010decided

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 Nellie Mae Marker, Administratrix of the Estate of Donald Orvel Marker, Deceased v. Universal Oil Products Company, a Corporation · Ford Motor Co. v. Wolber · Lyons v. Valley View Hospital

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.

  1. ““When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the rule is well settled that a manufacturer does not have a legal duty to produce a product incorporating only features representing the ultimate in safety.... To recover, appellant necessarily must establish that the [product] was defective when manufactured, that such defect rendered the [product] unsafe for its intended use, and that the defective [product] proximately caused the deceased's injuries.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Appellee supported its motion for summary judgment with documents. Under the circumstances, the party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations of his pleading but must respond with specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.””
    2 later decisions 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.