Farner v. Paccar, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
562 F.2d 518 · 1977
Citation profile
82 federal appellate · 7 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 145 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Dixon v. International Harvester Co. (1985), United States v. Paiva (1989)
82 federal appellate · 7 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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. § 1411 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Relies on Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Braunfeld v. Gibbons · Topsy's International, Inc. v. Seiffer · Butz v. Hein · Wilson v. Great Northern Railway Company
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 145 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Admissions made under a duty imposed by law stand on a peculiar footing. It would seem that nothing in the principles governing admissions excludes them. But they may nevertheless come to be excluded on two other principles: (a) The statutes imposing such a duty usually require the statement in the shape of a report to a public official, e. g., a druggist’s record of sale of poison, a corporation’s report of assets, a common carrier’s report of an injury done. In such cases the statute sometimes makes the communication confidential and expressly brings it under a privilege . Without such express provision, the privilege might be implied, where policy obviously required it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We believe that this reasoning is equally applicable here. Just as it is not reasonable to assume that manufacturers will forego improvements in products in order to avoid admission of the evidence of the improvements against them, it is not reasonable to assume that the manufacturers will risk wholesale violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 16 and liability for subsequent injuries caused by defects known by them to exist in order to avoid the possible use of recall evidence as an admission against them. We find no error in the admission of these documents.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A products liability case looks to a defect in the product rather than any culpable act by the manufacturer. In an age of mass production it is not reasonable to assume that manufacturers would forego improvements in a product and subject themselves to mass liability for a defect just because evidence of an improvement is admissible in a pre-improvement liability case. The pure economics of the situation dictate otherwise. Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc., supra [ 249 N.W.2d 251 ], at 257 n. 7 quoted in Robbins v. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Assn., supra at 793. . . ."”
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.