Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 833 FSUPP 1239 - Harrow Products, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

Harrow Products, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
September 1996
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Tennessee v. Middlebrooks · Hamilton v. Texas

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Here, unlike the Titan, Pipefitters and Hirschberg cases, no showing has been made that Harrow Products is threatened with liability for interfering with property owners’ or occupants’ rights of private occupancy. No private occupants of property have filed claims in either action. Nor has the MDNR or Village of Saranac asserted claims as subrogees of, or in some other representative capacity for, occupants of property. The MDNR and Village of Saranac actions, asserting claims under the Michigan Water Resources Commission Act, the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, and CERCLA based on the “people’s” interest in uncontaminated groundwater, cannot reasonably be characterized as premised upon interference with rights of private occupancy.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “This insurance does not apply: ... (f) to bodily injury or property damage arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids or gases, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants, or pollutants into or upon land, the atmosphere or any water course or body of water; but this exclusion does not apply if such discharge, dispersal, release or escape is sudden and accidental____”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “invasion of the right of private occupancy.”
    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.