Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 551 NE2D 1139 - Miller v. Todd

Miller v. Todd’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
2
states following
January 2020
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably Bammerlin v. Navistar International Transportation Corp. (1994), McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp. (1998)

24 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

3401990200020102020decided

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. § 1901 (Sherman Antitrust Act)

Relies on Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Larsen v. General Motors Corp. · First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Oklahoma Tax Commission · United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · Fox v. Ford 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “not merely the conclusion that a product failed and caused injury, but that the product failed to provide the consumer with reasonable protection under the circumstances surrounding a particular accident.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The Larsen court did not require a manufacturer to construct an accident-proof vehicle; rather, it held that general negligence principles apply to impose liability when unreasonable risk of injury is created by the manufacturer’s design. Larsen suggests that whether or not the design creates unreasonable danger can be determined using general negligence principles “which involve a balancing of the likelihood of harm, and the gravity of harm if it happens against the burden of the precautions which would be effective to avoid the harm.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “the relative obviousness of a defect is certainly pertinent to determining whether a product is ... unreasonably dangerous”
    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.