Davidson v. Stanadyne, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
718 F.2d 1334 · 1983
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Fontenot v. Upjohn Co. (1986), Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, Inc. (1990)
24 federal appellate · 2 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 Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc. · State of New York v. United States · Robert Johnson Grain Co. v. Chemical Interchange Co. · Rourke v. Garza · Pierce v. Ford Motor Co.
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the use of summary judgment is rarely appropriate in negligence or products liability cases, even where material facts are not disputed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The principles governing recovery in a products liability case alleging defective design under Texas law have been recently summarized in Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc., 644 S.W.2d 828 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1982), rev’d on other grounds, 650 S.W.2d 61 (Tex.1983): 'As established in [Turner v. General Motors Corp., 584 S.W.2d 844 (Tex. 1979) ], the predicate for recovery in a defective design case is a showing that the product was defective, that the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous and that the defect was a producing cause of injuries ----’ ” ( 718 F.2d at 1338 ) (emphasis added). 13”
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.