Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 567 F.2d 1259 - Schell v. AMF, Inc.

Schell v. AMF, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

567 F.2d 1259 · 1977

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
5
states following
October 2015
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably 320 Pa. Super. 444 - Burch v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. (1983), Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Company, Inc. (1978)

18 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

15019771980199020002010decided

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 Webb v. Zern · Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. · Greco v. Bucciconi Engineering Co. · Bartkewich v. BILLINGER · Ferraro 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'... whether a particular use of a product is abnormal depends on whether the use was reasonably foreseeable by the seller'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “The expected expertise of the manufacturer in a highly specialized field”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “(A)s a matter of policy, it is questionable whether a manufacturer which produces a machine without minimal available safeguards is entitled to escape liability by warning of a dangerous condition which could reasonably have been avoided by a better design.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.