Mathis v. Eli Lilly & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
719 F.2d 134 · 1983
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Kochins v. Linden-Alimak, Inc. (1986), Grantham & Mann Inc. v. American Safety Products, Inc. (1987)
29 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 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 Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. · Urie v. Thompson · Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co. · Munn v. Illinois · Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the highest court has not spoken, the federal court must ascertain from all available data what the state law is and apply it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“WHEREAS ... it is necessary to protect the public interest by enacting measures designed to make product liability insurance more readily available at a reasonable cost so that product cost may be lessened to the consumer; and WHEREAS, In enacting this act, it is the purpose of the General Assembly to provide a reasonable time within which action may be commenced against manufacturers, and/or sellers while limiting the time to a specific period of time for which product liability insurance premiums can be reasonably and accurately calculated; and to provide other changes to expedite early evaluation and settlement of claims----”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our cases have clearly established that ‘[a] person has no property, no vested interest, in any rule of the common law.’ The ‘Constitution does not forbid the creation of new rights, or the abolition of old ones recognized by the common law, to attain a permissible legislative object,’ despite the fact that ‘otherwise settled expectations’ may be upset thereby. Indeed, statutes limiting liability are relatively in commonplace and have consistently been enforced by the courts.”
2 later decisions 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.