Prodliabrepp 11549’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
7 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2017
7 district · 4 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 Urie v. Thompson · Maughan v. SW Servicing, Inc. · Dalton v. Dow Chemical Co. · Karjala v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. · 124 Cal. App. 378 - Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Industrial Accident Commission
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Under Minnesota law, two elements must be satisfied under the discovery rule before a cause of action accrues in cases involving injuries caused by a defective product: (1) a cognizable physical manifestation of the disease or injury, and (2) evidence of a causal connection between the injury or disease and the defendant’s product, act, or omission.” Hildebrandt, 839 F.2d at 398 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“There is a substantial difference between knowledge of injury and the cause of that injury and mere suspicion.... The evidence shows that [the plaintiffs’] suspicions regarding their symptoms about TDI were either unconfirmed or denied at the time of their early employment with Whirlpool. If they had filed an action when they were employed at Whirlpool and complained of their symptoms, their claim may well have been dismissed as frivolous. A jury, like the plaintiffs’ physicians, may have concluded that the plaintiffs’ manifestations were unrelated to TDI exposure. Thus, if the plaintiffs had filed, a later cause of action could have been barred. We do not believe Minnesota’s applicable statutes of limitation were intended to provoke the prema ture commencement of claims for temporary sickness or discomfort. Rather, the plaintiffs are entitled to wait until the cause has been rationally identified.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“summary judgment cannot be granted unless the evidence is so clear that there is no genuine factual issue and the determinations can be made as a matter of law.”
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.