Orfield v. International Harvester Co.’s Empirical Analysis
535 F.2d 959 · 1976
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently December 1994 · most notably George BAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Y & O PRESS COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee (1985), Wyatt v. Winnebago Industries, Inc. (1977)
9 federal appellate · 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 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate J Bosch Second National Bank of New Haven · Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, Inc. · Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. · Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. · 32 Ill. 2d 612 - Suvada v. White Motor Co.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“forecast as best [it] can from available sources what the Supreme Court of the state would do if presented with the same issue.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Product liability action” for purposes of this chapter shall include all actions’ brought for or on account of personal injury, death or property damage caused by or resulting from the manufacture, construction, design, formula, preparation, assembly, testing, service, warning, instruction, marketing, packaging or labeling of any product. It shall include, but not be limited to, all actions based upon the following theories: strict liability in tort; negligence; breach of warranty, express or implied, breach of or failure to discharge a duty to warn or instruct, whether negligent or innocent; misrepresentation, concealment or nondisclosure, whether negligent or innocent; or under any other substantive legal theory in tort or contract whatsoever. (T.C.A. § 29-28-102(6)). “Defective condition” means a condition of a product that renders it unsafe from normal or anticipatable handling and consumption. (T.C.A. § 29-28-102(2)). “Unreasonably dangerous” means that a product is dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge, to the community as to its characteristics, or that the product because of its dangerous condition would not be put on the market by a reasonably prudent manufacturer or seller assuming that he knew of its dangerous condition. (T.C.A. § 29-28-102(8)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“beyond that which would be contemplated by an operator of long experience....”
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.