Pitts v. Electro-Static Finishing, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.2d 799 · 1979
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably Vanskike v. ACF Industries, Inc. (1981), Toth v. Yoder Co. (1984)
43 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
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 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Springrose v. Willmore · Voegeli v. Lewis · Sanden v. Mayo Clinic · Simpson v. Skelly Oil 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[I]n a diversity case the question of whether a new trial is to be granted is a federal procedural question and is to be decided by reference to federal law.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The term “assumption of risk” has two meanings in Minnesota. In its primary sense it means simply that the defendant owed no duty of care toward the plaintiff and therefore could not be guilty of negligence with respect to him. In its “secondary” sense assumption of risk means simply that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence or fault * * *.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the question of granting or denying of a motion for a new trial following a jury verdict addresses itself to the judicial discretion of the trial judge, and his decision will not be reversed in the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Strunk v. Hurley
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.