Ellison v. Conoco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
950 F.2d 1196 · 1992
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably In the Matter of West Texas Marketing Corporation v. Walter Kellogg--Trustee, Pickett v. RTS Helicopter (1997)
33 federal appellate · 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 43 U.S.C. § 1331 (Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006) · 43 U.S.C. § 1333
Relies on The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis · Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan · Brendale v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation · United States v. Indrelunas
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“only if we find that on all of the evidence no reasonable juror could arrive at a verdict contrary to the district court's conclusion.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"According to the French understanding, garde is the obligation imposed by law on the proprietor of a thing, or on the one who avails himself of it, to prevent the thing from causing damage to others. [ Ross v. La Coste de Monterville, 502 So.2d 1026 (La.1987)] In the actual application of French law, the garde of a thing is divided between the guardian of the conduct of the object, who is responsible for damage caused by the object's behavior, and the guardian of the object's structure, who is responsible for damage caused by the object's defects. Ross, 502 So.2d at 1030 . Article 2317 embraces only the second component. Id. at 1032 . Because article 2317 imposes strict liability, the injured plaintiff need not prove the guardian's knowledge of the defect prior to the accident."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"We are responsible, not only for the damage occasioned by our own act, but for that which is caused by the act of persons for whom we are answerable, or of the things which we have in our custody...."”
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.