Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “Indeed, products-liability theories rely on the principle that a party in the chain of distribution of a harm-causing product should be liable because that party is in the best position to absorb the costs of liability into the cost of production: On whatever theory, the justification for the strict liability has been said to be that the seller, by marketing his product for use and consumption, has undertaken and assumed a special responsibility toward any member of the consuming public who may be injured by it; that the public has the right to and does expect, in the case of products which it needs and for which it is forced to rely upon the seller, that reputable sellers will stand behind their goods; that public policy demands that the burden of accidental injuries caused by products intended for consumption be placed upon those who market them, and be treated as a cost of production against which liability insurance can be obtained; and that the consumer of such products is entitled to the maximum of protection at the hands of someone, and the proper persons to afford it are those who market the products. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, cmt. c (1965) (emphasis added). And various courts that have considered the issue have similarly noted that this policy weighs against holding manufacturers liable for harm caused by asbestos products they did not manufacture or distribute because those manufacturers cannot account for the costs of liability created by the third part”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cabasug v. Crane Co. · 219 Md. App. 424 - May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp.

2. “"In determining whether Defendant manufacturers are liable under maritime law for injuries caused by asbestos parts used with their products, whether in strict liability or negligence, a plaintiff must establish causation with respect to each defendant manufacturer. See Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488 , 492 (6th Cir.2005). A plaintiff establishes causation under maritime law by showing (1) that the plaintiff was exposed to the defendant’s product and (2) that the product was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injury. See id.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walker v. Blackmer Pump Co. · 188 F. Supp. 3d 454 - John B. DeVries v. General Electric Co.

3. “[W]here, as here, a defense arises under federal law and the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue, the transferee court typically applies the law of the circuit in which it sits, that is, Third Circuit law. See, e.g., Oil Field Cases, 673 F.Supp.2d 358, 362-63 (E.D.Pa.2009)(Robreno, J.). The law of a transferor forum “merits close consideration, but does not have stare deci-sis effect” on the transferee court. In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of Sept. 1, 1983, 829 F.2d 1171, 1176 (D.C.Cir.1987), aff'd sub nom, Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd., 490 U.S. 122 , 109 S.Ct. 1676 , 104 L.Ed.2d 113 (1989); see also Federal Judicial Center, Manual for Complex Litigation § 20.132, at 222 (4th ed. 2004) (“Where the claim or defense arises under federal law, however, the transferee judge should consider whether to apply the law of the transferee circuit or that of the transferor court’s circuit.... ”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 188 F. Supp. 3d 454 - John B. DeVries v. General Electric Co.