Valentine v. Ormsbee Exploration Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2007 · most notably I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant (2000), Ogle v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. (1986)
32 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 Hostetter v. Park · 214 Pa. Super. 384 - MacDougall v. Ford Motor Co. · 64 Ill. 2d 570 - Tweedy v. Wright Ford Sales, Inc. · ABC Builders, Inc. v. Phillips · Barnette v. Doyle
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"A prima facie case that a product was defective and that the defect existed when it left the manufacturer's control is made by proof that in the absence of abnormal use or reasonable secondary causes the product failed `to perform in the manner reasonably to be expected in light of [its] nature and intended function.'"”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`Proof of the specific defect in construction or design causing a mechanical malfunction is not an essential element in establishing breach of warranty. "When machinery `malfunctions,' it obviously lacks fitness regardless of the cause of the malfunction. Under the theory of warranty, the `sin' is the lack of fitness as evidenced by the malfunction itself rather than some specific dereliction by the manufacturer in constructing or designing the machinery." [Citations.]' MacDougall v. Ford Motor Company, 214 Pa.Super. 384 , 257 A.2d 676, 679 (1969)." Valentine, 665 P.2d at 462 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“accept the evidence of the prevailing party as true. We will not disturb the trier of fact's findings unless the findings are so totally in conflict with the great weight of the evidence that they may be properly categorized as irrational.”
1 later decision 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.