Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 780 F.2d 1093 - Consumers Power Company v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation

Consumers Power Company v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

780 F.2d 1093 · 1986

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
4
states following
February 2010
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently February 2010

4 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions

801986199020002010decided

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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)

Relies on Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. · 63 Cal. 2d 9 - Seely v. White Motor Co. · Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. · Dioguardi v. United States · Donovan v. Penn Shipping 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “no evidence that Consumers Power ever received the brochure [containing the limitation of liability that the defendant sought to be enforced], much less that it read and consented to its contents.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corp. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. , 652 F.2d 1165 (3d Cir. 1981) . . . this court explained the difference between economic loss and property damage: `The courts of most states . . . have classified the damages consequent to qualitative defects, such as reduced value, return of purchase price, repair and replacement, or lost profits, as economic loss, and have relegated those who suffer such commercial loss to the remedies of contract law. Consumer Power Co. v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. , 780 F.2d 1093 , 1098 (3rd Cir. 1986).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “only when the loss is attributable to bodily injury or damage to property other than the defective product itself is the remedy in tort.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.