Ogle v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 10 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably Thom v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (2003), Leithead v. American Colloid Co. (1986)
3 federal appellate · 10 district · 38 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 Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. · Gibbs v. General Motors Corporation · Webb v. Zern · Heavner v. Uniroyal, Inc. · 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" Special Liability of Seller of Product for Physical Harm to User or Consumer "(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if "(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such product, and "(b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. "(2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although "(a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and "(b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) * * * sellers were engaged in the business of selling the product that caused the harm; (2) * * * product was defective when sold; (3) * * * product was unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer; (4) * * * product was intended to and did reach the consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold; and (5) * * * product caused physical harm to the plaintiff/consumer.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“When a defective article enters the stream of commerce and an innocent person is hurt, it is better that the loss fall on the manufacturer, distributor or seller than on the innocent victim. This is true even if the entities in the chain of production and distribution exercise due care in the defective product’s manufacture and delivery. They are simply in the best position to either insure against the loss or spread the loss among all the consumers of the product.”
1 later decision 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.