Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 549 P2D 1099 - Hamilton v. Hardy

Hamilton v. Hardy’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
19
states following
February 2021
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 9 district · 53 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably Feldman v. Lederle Laboratories (1984), Seley v. G. D. Searle & Co. (1981)

10 federal appellate · 9 district · 53 state decisions — followed in 19 states

420197619801990200020102020decided

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 8 Cal. 3d 229 - Cobbs v. Grant · 9 Cal. 3d 51 - Stevens v. Parke, Davis & Co. · Canterbury v. Spence · Reyes v. Wyeth Laboratories · Wilkinson v. Vesey

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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"The article can have a degree of dangerousness because of a lack of warning which the law of strict liability will not tolerate even though the actions of the seller were entirely reasonable in selling the article without a warning considering what he knew or should have known at the time he sold it." ( 269 Or. 485, 498 , 525 P.2d 1033, 1039 .)”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “What the doctor might or might not have done had he been adequately warned is not an element plaintiff must prove as a part of her case.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““* * * Under strict liability, the test is whether the failure of * * * [the manufacturer] to adequately warn of the potentially dangerous propensities of its product rendered that product unreasonably dangerous. It is of no import whether this drug manufacturer’s warning comported with the warning a reasonably prudent drug manufacturer would have given.” Hamilton v. Hardy, 37 Colo. App. 375 , 549 P.2d 1099 .”
    1 later decision 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.