Curtis v. Universal Match Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Sigler v. American Honda Motor Co. (2008), Hernandez Ex Rel. Emeterio v. Tokai Corp. (1999)
1 federal appellate · 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 15 U.S.C. § 1261 (Child Protection Act of 1966) · 15 U.S.C. § 1471 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2052 · 15 U.S.C. § 2072 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Erie Co v. Tompkins · Penson v. Ohio · United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.
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.
“Once the moving party presents evidence sufficient to support a motion under Rule 56, the nonmoving party is not entitled to a trial merely on the basis of allegations.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that a product is dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics, or that the product because of its dangerous condition would not be put on the market by a reasonably prudent manufacturer or seller assuming that he knew of its dangerous condition.”
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.