Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 786 SO2D 383 - Huff v. Shopsmith, Inc.

Huff v. Shopsmith, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
4
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2026

9 state decisions

60200120102020decided

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 19 Cal. 3d 22 - Ray v. Alad Corp. · Ramirez v. Amsted Industries, Inc. · Mozingo v. Correct Manufacturing Corp. · 189 So. 2d 113 - State Stove Manufacturing Company v. Hodges · Leannais v. Cincinnati, 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The general rule in Mississippi is “that a corporation which acquires all of the assets, but no stock, of another corporation does not also acquire the debts and liabilities of the original.” There are only four exceptions to the general rule: “(1) When the successor expressly or impliedly agrees to assume the liabilities of the predecessor; (2) When the transaction may be considered a de facto merger; (3) When the successor may be considered a mere continuation of the predecessor; or (4) When the transaction was fraudulent.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A de facto merger exists when there is a continuity of management, personnel, assets and operations; a continuity of shareholders; the predecessor dissolves shortly thereafter; and the successor assumes the predecessor's obligations.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “is no longer the authority on the necessary elements of a products liability action” due to the adoption of the MPLA, the common law principles”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.