Knitz v. Minster Machine Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 172 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2025 · most notably Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc. v. Blankenship (1982), 8 Cal. 4th 548 - Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994)
50 federal appellate · 80 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 Temple v. Wean United, Inc. · 20 Cal. 3d 413 - Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. · Leichtamer v. American Motors Corp. · Lonzrick v. Republic Steel Corp. · State Auto Mutual Ins. v. Chrysler Corp.
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 172 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer ... is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused.... ” Id.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“'likelihood that the product design will cause injury, the gravity of the danger posed, and the mechanical and the economic feasibility of an improved design.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“Unlike the factual setting in Leichtamer, there are situations in which 'the consumer would not know what to expect, because he would have no idea how safe the product could be made' .... Difficulty could arise, for example, where the injured party is an innocent bystander who is ignorant of the product and has no expectation of its safety, or where a new product is involved and no expectation of safety has developed. Conversely, liability would be barred hypothetically where industrial workmen gradually learn of the dangers involved in the machinery they must use to make a living and come to 'expect' the dangers. In such cases, the policy underlying such tort requires that 'a product may be found defective in design, even if it satisfies ordinary consumer expectations' ....”
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.