Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 765 F.2d 560 - Leonard v. Uniroyal, Inc.

Leonard v. Uniroyal, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

765 F.2d 560 · 1985

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
October 2014
most recently cited

18 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably Polec v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. (1996), Morales v. American Honda Motor Co. (1995)

18 federal appellate ·

1501985199020002010decided

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 Doris R. Edwards, Etc., Cross-Appellant v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, Cross-Appellees · Montgomery Elevator Co. v. McCullough Ex Rel. McCullough · 6 Mass. App. Ct. 346 - Wolfe v. Ford Motor Co. · 32 Ill. App. 3d 122 - Mullen v. General Motors Corp. · Post v. American Cleaning Equipment 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “if other substantially equivalent evidence of the same facts [was] admitted into evidence.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]t is no answer to say that appellant would have attached the machine to a 220 DC outlet anyway, since he did so in the face of the directions that were furnished”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'unless refusal to take such action appears to the Court to be inconsistent with substantial justice.'”
    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.