669 So. 2d 840 - Bic Corp. v. Bean’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently May 2016
14 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 Cobb v. Malone · Lee v. Gidley · 514 So. 2d 1249 - Black Belt Wood Co., Inc. v. Sessions · 373 So. 2d 869 - Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Holman · 630 So. 2d 1012 - Clark v. Black
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`[u]nchallenged jury instructions become the law of the case. Louisville Nashville R.R. v. Atkins , 435 So.2d 1275 (Ala. 1983).' Clark v. Black , 630 So.2d 1012 , 1017 (Ala. 1993). `The jury is bound to follow such instructions, even if they are erroneous. Lee v. Gidley , 252 Ala. 156 , 40 So.2d 80 (1949) (erroneous instructions became the law of the case, and a judgment entered on the jury's verdict comporting with those instructions would not be reversed on appeal).' 630 So.2d at 1017 ."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“"One issue that did play a prominent role in the trial, however, regarded the Beans' supervision of their children. That issue was relevant to at least two elements of the plaintiffs' prima facie case, namely, foreseeability and proximate cause. As to foreseeability, the court charged the jury: "`The fifth element that the plaintiff[s] must prove to your reasonable satisfaction is that the lighter was being used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner at the time of the fire. The plaintiffs claim that it was reasonably foreseeable, at the time BIC marketed the lighter in question, that children too young to appreciate the dangers of operating the lighter, could obtain and operate the lighter. "`. . . Whether it was reasonably foreseeable that children too young to appreciate the dangers of operating BIC lighters, could obtain and operate such lighters is a fact issue for you to decide based on all the evidence presented .' "Also, forcefully presented in closing argument was BIC's contention that the Beans had failed to supervise their children and that their failure in that regard was the sole proximate cause of the fire ."”
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.