Eiseman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 federal appellate · 6 district · 12 state decisions

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

1. “In the commercial context, a duty to speak with care exists when 'the relationship of the parties, arising out of contract or otherwise, [is] such that in morals and good conscience the one has the right to rely upon the other for information.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Capax Discovery, Inc. v. AEP RSD Investors, LLC · 724 F. Supp. 1421 - Andrulonis v. United States

2. “In completing [a medical] report, the physician plainly owe[s] a duty of care to his patient and to persons he knew or reasonably should have known were relying on him for this service to his patient.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rosenfeld v. Lenich · Dorking Genetics v. United States

3. ““While moral and logical judgments are significant components of the analysis, we are also bound to consider the larger social consequences of our decisions and to tailor our notion of duty so that ‘the legal consequences of wrongs [are limited] to a controllable degree.’ ” [The New York Court of Appeals] has “limited the universe of permissible plaintiffs because a failure to do so would impose a duty of reasonable care enforceable by any member of an indeterminate class of persons, present and prospective, known and unknown, directly or indirectly injured by any negligence.” The court noted that “[t]he hazards of a business conducted on these terms are so extreme as to enkindle doubt whether a flaw may not exist in the implication of a duty that exposes to these consequences.” Although Dow Chemical may have had a duty to the actual users of its research such as Dow Corning, that liability does not extend ad infinitum to any potential ultimate user of a product which contains a silicone component. Dow Corning has over the years been in the business of manufacturing silicone related products for thousands of applications. If this court were to hold that Dow Chemical assumed a duty of care based on its silicone related testing and consulting to every potential ultimate consumer of a product which contained silicone, the duty imposed on Dow Chemical would be indeterminate and infinite.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dow Chemical Co. v. Mahlum