Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 695 P2D 1343 - Braden v. Hendricks

Braden v. Hendricks’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
6
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Minter v. Prime Equipment Co. (2006), Panama Processes, S.A. v. Cities Service Co. (1990)

11 federal appellate · 34 state decisions

17019851990200020102020decided

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 Luce v. United States · United States v. Abel · Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. · Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. · Kirkland v. General Motors Corporation

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

  1. “[i]n a strict liability action it is immaterial to the plaintiff's case that the defect in the product was not caused by the distributor.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “If the evidence is excluded by an in limine ruling, the party seeking to introduce it must at trial-out of the hearing of the jury-make an offer to show for the record the essence of testimony sought to be elicited. In this manner the trial court is afforded an opportunity to make its in-trial ruling upon the issue in contention. It was incumbent upon the [party] to make an offer of proof in order to preserve the error for our review.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Where one owes a nondelegable duty to third persons, he cannot escape the obligation of performing such duty by engaging for its performance through or by a contractor, and in such cases the rule that an employer is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor has no application.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.