Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 677 F.2d 1226 - Randall v. Warnaco, Inc.

Randall v. Warnaco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

677 F.2d 1226 · 1982

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
5
states following
September 2012
most recently cited

33 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc. (1988), Kehm v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co. (1983)

33 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

2601982199020002010decided

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 Gray v. United States · 4 Cal. 3d 379 - Jiminez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · Shirley J. Lindsay, of the Estate of John Douglas Lindsay, Deceased v. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Corporation, a Corporation · Robbins v. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass'n · Busch v. Busch Construction, Inc.

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

  1. “A court may properly admit experimental evidence if the tests were conducted under conditions substantially similar to the actual conditions. Admissibility, however, does not depend on perfect identity between actual and experimental conditions. Ordinarily, dissimilarities affect the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. ““Where ... an experiment purports to simulate actual events and to show the jury what presumably occurred at the scene of the accident, the party introducing the evidence has a burden of demonstrating substantial similarity of conditions. They may not be identical but they ought to be sufficiently similar so as to provide a fair comparison.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “burden of proving against defendant as those issues have been set out in these instructions.”
    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.