Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
893 F.2d 541 · 1990
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 18 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2020 · most notably Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. (1992), Barnes
15 federal appellate · 18 district · 13 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1331 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1333 (Robinson-Patman Act of 1936) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul · Silkwood v. Corporation · Maryland v. Louisiana
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Express warranties by the seller are created as follows: (a)Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise. (b) Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description. (c) Any sample or model which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the whole of the goods shall conform to the sample or model. (2) It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the seller use formal words such as “warrant” or “guarantee” or that he have a specific intention to make a warranty, but an affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be merely the seller’s opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“either the adequacy of the warning on cigarette packages or the propriety of a party's actions with respect to the advertising and promotion of cigarettes.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An example may help to clarify. Suppose the jury finds that the plaintiff suffered $100,000 in damages from the bypass surgery. Suppose also the jury finds that, after plaintiff had begun treatment with the podiatrist, her conduct before the toe surgery was 10% responsible for her ultimate injury (the first percentage), but that her conduct before and after the toe surgery combined were 80% responsible (the second percentage). Thus the podiatrist's conduct (before the toe surgery) must have been 20% responsible for the ultimate injury. On these facts, even though the plaintiff's total conduct was more responsible for her injury then the podiatrist's (80% versus 20%), she would recover, because her conduct before the toe surgery was less responsible for her ultimate injury than the podiatrist's conduct during that time (10% versus 20%). However, her ultimate recovery would be only $20,000 (because the podiatrist was only 20% responsible for the ultimate injury). [ Id. at 558, n. 9 ]”
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.