Colbert v. SONIC RESTAURANTS, INC.’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Erie Co v. Tompkins · Boudreaux v. Swift Transportation Co. · 774 So. 2d 70 - Wainwright v. Fontenot · 601 So. 2d 1355 - Spott v. Otis Elevator 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A product is unreasonably dangerous if and only if: (1) The product is unreasonably dangerous in construction or composition ...; (2) The product is unreasonably dangerous in design ...; (3) The product is unreasonably dangerous because an adequate warning about the product has not been provided ...; or (4) The product is unreasonably dangerous because it does not conform to an express warranty of the manufacturer about the product....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jones v. Coty Inc.“The LPLA sets forth four exclusive theories of recovery against a manufacturer: (1) defect in construction or composition, (2) defect in design, (3) inadequate warning or (4) failure to comply with an express warranty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jones v. Coty Inc.
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.