Merced v. Auto Pak Co.’s Empirical Analysis
533 F.2d 71 · 1976
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 1997
5 federal appellate · 1 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 Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. · Dole v. Dow Chemical Co. · Campo v. Scofield · Anonymous Nos. 16 & 17 v. Arkwright · Codling v. Paglia
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.
“the New York Court of Appeals has been quite explicit ... in its warning to trial judges in products liability cases ... that 'the perception of the reasonable user ... as to the dangers which inhere' in a defective product is a question of fact to be submitted to the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.