Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 882 FSUPP 979 - Arnold v. Riddell, Inc.

Arnold v. Riddell, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
March 2015
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2015

1 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

70199520002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1866 · 28 U.S.C. § 1867

Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood · Reiter v. Cooper · Gray v. United States · Building & Construction Trades Council of the Metropolitan District v. Associated Builders & Contractors of Massachusetts/Rhode Island, Inc.

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

  1. “... a product seller shall not be subject to liability in a product liability claim if the product seller proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the harm was caused after the product’s “useful safe life” had expired. “Useful safe life” begins at the time of delivery of the product and extends for the time during which the product would normally be likely to perform or be stored in a safe manner. For the purposes of this section, “time of delivery” means the time of delivery of a product to its first purchaser or lessee who was not engaged in the business of either selling such prod ucts or using them as component parts of another product to be sold. (b)(1) In claims that involve harm caused more than 10 years after time of delivery, a presumption arises that the harm was caused after the useful safe life had expired. This presumption may only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.”
    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.