Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 628 FSUPP 1219 - Anderson v. W.R. Grace & Co.

Anderson v. W.R. Grace & Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
8
states following
December 2015
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 11 district · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably 6 Cal. 4th 965 - Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993), Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp. (1988)

10 federal appellate · 11 district · 22 state decisions

3001986199020002010decided

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 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate J Bosch Second National Bank of New Haven · Bates v. State Bar · Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co. · Brooklier v. United States · 19 Cal. 3d 59 - Krouse v. Graham

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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[P]laintiffs are entitled to present alternative theories of liability to the [factfinder],” provided appropriate measures are taken at trial”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “... the increased risk of future harm in this action is the inevitable inequity which would result if recovery were allowed. `To award damages based on a mere mathematical probability would significantly undercompensate those who actually do develop cancer and would be a windfall to those who do not.' [ Anderson, supra, 628 F. Supp. at 1232 , citing Arnett v. Dow Chemical Corp., No. 729586, slip op. at 15 (Cal.Super.Ct. 1983)].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “did not distinguish between gross and subcellular harm. Instead, the court drew a line between harm which can be' proven to exist through expert medical testimony . . . and harm which is merely speculative or based solely on a plaintiff's unsupported assertions”
    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.