Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 798 P.2d 279 - Conger v. Tel Tech, Inc.

Conger v. Tel Tech, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
May 1994
most recently cited

1 district · 3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Roberts · Brown v. North American Manufacturing Co. · 93 Ill. App. 3d 244 - Lundy v. Whiting Corp. · Ernest W. Hahn, Inc. v. Armco Steel 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[Unreasonably dangerous means that the product was dangerous to an extent beyond which would be contemplated by the ordinary and prudent buyer, consumer or user of that product in that community considering the product’s characteristics, propensities, risks, dangers and uses together with any actual knowledge, training, or experience possessed by that particular buyer, user or consumer.”
    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.