Smith v. United States Gypsum Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 1 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Barber v. General Electric Co. (1981), Freund v. Cellofilm Properties, Inc. (1981)
35 federal appellate · 1 district · 28 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
Relies on Berkebile v. Brantly Helicopter Corp. · Kirkland v. General Motors Corporation · Fields v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. · 92 Wash. 2d 118 - Little v. PPG Industries, Inc. · Ezagui v. Dow Chemical Corp.
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n order to escape being unreasonably dangerous, a potentially dangerous product must contain or reflect warnings covering all foreseeable uses. These warnings must be readily understandable and make the product safe.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“'dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“If a product is potentially dangerous to consumers, a manufacturer is required to give directions or warnings ... as to its use. If these warnings cover all foreseeable use and if the product is not unreasonably dangerous if the warnings and directions are followed, the product is not defective in this respect. If the warnings are unclear or inadequate to apprise the consumer of the inherent or latent danger, the product may be defective; particularly where a manufacturer has reason to anticipate danger may result from the use of his product and the product fails to contain adequate warning of such danger, the product is sold in a defective condition.”
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.