Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 913 F.2d 242 - Mitchell v. Lone Star Ammunition, Inc.

Mitchell v. Lone Star Ammunition, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

913 F.2d 242 · 1990

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
2
states following
April 2015
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably Torrington Co. v. Stutzman (2001), Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp. (1991)

25 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

310199020002010decided

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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)

Relies on Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Feres v. United States · The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. · Mabry v. Johnson

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

  1. “particularly strong when the defective product in question was manufactured and placed in the stream of commerce in the State of Texas.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Wp Denman Wt Denman v. Snapper Division · Nesladek v. Ford Motor Co.
  2. “[t]o say that a product fails to conform to specifications is just another way of saying that it was defectively manufactured”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. In Re" Agent Orange" Product Liability Lit. · Bailey v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
  3. “[n]o compelling reason ... why the North Carolina legislature would have an interest in the application of its statute of repose to eliminate the claims of foreign plaintiffs against foreign defendants.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Wp Denman Wt Denman v. Snapper Division

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.