Marion George v. The Celotex Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
914 F.2d 26 · 1990
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Zahra v. Town of Southold (1995), Kirsch v. Fleet Street, Ltd. (1998)
32 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 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.
Relationships
Relies on Patterson v. United States · Emich Motors Corporation v. General Motors Corporation · Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. · New England Coal & Coke Co. v. Northern Barge Corporation · 345 F. Supp. 353 - Hall v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“district court's determination of relevance will not be disturbed unless it evidences an abuse of discretion”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“held to the knowledge of an expert in its field, ... and therefore has a duty ‘to keep abreast of scientific knowledge, discoveries, and advances and is presumed to know what is imparted thereby.’ ... In addition, a manufacturer has a duty to test fully and inspect its products to uncover all dangers that are scientifically discoverable.... In fulfilling its duty, a manufacturer may not rest content with industry practice, for the industry may be lagging behind in its knowledge about a product, or in what, with the exercise of reasonable care, is knowable about a product.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Is it then a final answer that the business had not yet generally adopted receiving sets? . . . Indeed in most cases reasonable prudence is in fact common prudence; but strictly it is never its measure; a whole calling may have unduly lagged in the adoption of new and available devices. It may never set its own tests, however persuasive be its usages. Courts must in the end say what is required; there are precautions so imperative that even their universal disregard will not excuse their omission.”
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.