Brocklesby v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
767 F.2d 1288 · 1985
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Quick v. Crane (1986), Herrington v. County of Sonoma (1987)
35 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2402 · 28 U.S.C. § 2674
Relies on Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. · 20 Cal. 3d 413 - Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. · Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. · Day & Zimmermann, Inc. v. Challoner
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the judgment must be reversed if any of the three theories is legally defective”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(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 a 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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The test, however, is not whether the relationship of the parties was an operative fact in the case, but whether it was ‘relevant’ within the meaning of Rule 401. Evidence relating to the relationship of the parties is relevant because it tends to make their respective positions less credible.” Id., n. 2 (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.