Ernst v. Ford Motor Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Baxter International, Inc. v. Morris (1992), Graue v. Missouri Property Insurance Placement Facility (1993)
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 29 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
Relies on Idaho ex rel. Evans v. Oregon · Groseth International, Inc. v. Tenneco, Inc. · Community Title Co. v. Roosevelt Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · Schultz Jc v. Onan Corporation · Labor Discount Center, Inc. v. State Bank & Trust Co. of Wellston
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to an issue in tort are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties under the principles stated in [section] 6. (2) Contacts to be taken into account in applying the principles of [section] 6 to determine the law applicable to an issue include: (a) the place where the injury occurred, (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (c) the domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The law of the State chosen by the parties to govern their contractual rights and duties will be applied, even if the particular issue is one which the parties could not have resolved by an explicit provision in their agreement directed to that issue, unless... application of the law of the chosen state would be contrary to a fundamental policy of a state which has a materially greater interest than the chosen state in the determination of the particular issue and which, under the rule of § 188, would be the state of the applicable law in the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Third party beneficiaries include those to whom the law gives a right to maintain a cause of action for breach of contract even though they never became privy to a contract nor to its consideration. Only those third parties for whose primary benefit the contracting parties intended to make the contract may maintain an action. Although the contract need not name the third party beneficiary, the terms of the contract must directly and clearly express an intent to benefit an identifiable person or class.”
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.