Howell Ex Rel. Howell v. Burk’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 10 district · 106 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably Zapata v. Burns (1988), Klein v. Catalano (1982)
4 federal appellate · 10 district · 106 state decisions — followed in 23 states
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 Silver v. Silver · Rosenberg v. Town of North Bergen · 66 Wis. 2d 382 - Kallas Millwork Corp. v. Square D Co. · 38 Ill. 2d 455 - Skinner v. Anderson · Fujioka Ex Rel. Fujioka v. Kam
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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] materialman who does no more than manufacture or supply materials does not benefit from the statute. The statute, however, applies to “any person performing or furnishing the construction or the design ... of construction.” _To the extent that PPG [defendant] is sued as manufacturer or seller of the glass, PPG is not covered by the statute and the summary judgment in favor of PPG as to these claims was error. To the extent that PPG is sued as the designer or installer of the glass, PPG is covered by the statute and the summary judgment in its favor was correct. The statutory language requires an activity analysis. [Emphasis added.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]hose covered by the statute have no control over the real estate improvement once it is completed and turned over to the owner.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The difficulties of those covered by the statute in providing a reasonable defense to a claim made years after the construction was completed, the absence of control of the premises by those covered by the statute, and the historical differences in liability between owners and occupiers of land and those covered by the statute provide a reasonable basis for excluding owners and tenants from the benefits of the statute. “There is also a reasonable basis for distinguishing between materialmen and persons covered by the statute. That reasonable basis lies in the work performed. ‘The manufacturer makes standard goods and develops standard processes. Defects are harder to find in the contractor’s special jobs.’ . .. ‘[T]he legislature could reasonably have concluded that evidentiary problems facing the architect and contractor are greater than those facing the materialmen.’ ” 568 P.2d at 220 (citations omitted).”
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.