Acord v. General Motors Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 122 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 143 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co. (1987), Clancy v. Zale Corp. (1986)
17 federal appellate · 122 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 Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co. · Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. McCardell · Turner v. General Motors Corp. · General Motors Corp. v. Hopkins · Henderson v. Ford Motor Company
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 143 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We explicitly approve the Pattern Jury Charge issue and instruction for design defect cases, and disapprove the addition of any other instructions in such cases, however correctly they may state the law....”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“A “defectively designed” product is a product which is unreasonably dangerous as designed, taking into consideration the utility of the product and the risk involved in its use.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“design. This Court specifically approved the following design defect issue and instruction for use in crashworthiness cases in an effort to instruct the jury regarding its duty to weigh risk against utility: Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that at the time the [product] in question was manufactured by [the manufacturer] the [product] was defectively designed? By the term”
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.