Travis v. Harris Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
565 F.2d 443 · 1977
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 8 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 134 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Ramirez v. Amsted Industries, Inc. (1981), Welco Industries, Inc. v. Applied Companies (1993)
42 federal appellate · 8 district · 36 state decisions — followed in 21 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
Relies on Golden State Bottling Company Inc v. National Labor Relations Board · Howard Johnson Company Inc v. Detroit Local Joint Executive Board Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union · 19 Cal. 3d 22 - Ray v. Alad Corp. · Turner v. Bituminous Casualty Co. · Ayr-Way Stores, Inc. v. Chitwood Ex Rel. Chitwood
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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Succession to a predecessor's service contract, coverage of the particular machine under a service contract, service of that machine by the purchaser corporation, a purchaser corporation's knowledge of defects and of the location or owner of that machine, are factors which may be considered in determining the presence of a nexus or relationship effective to create a duty to warn.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`[T]he test [of a "mere continuation"] is not the continuation of the business operation but the continuation of the corporate identity.' The indicia of `continuation' are a common identity of stock, directors, and stockholders and the existence of only one corporation at the completion of the transfer. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Travis v. Harris Corp. , 565 F.2d 443 , 447 (7th Cir. 1977).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The parties and the district court agreed that Ohio law should be applied because the 1964 contract so provided. Though the contract may be interpreted under Ohio law, the legal effect of that agreement, and questions of traditional tort law unrelated to the contract, are to be determined in accord with the laws of Indiana, the situs of the injury and domicile of Travis. Having the principal interest in the resolution of the present issues, and under its conflict of laws principles, Indiana would apply its own law."”
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.