Dedmon v. Stewart-Warner Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
950 F.2d 244 · 1992
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2012
7 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
Relies on Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc. · Dighton v. Federal Pacific Electric Co. · Ellerbe v. Otis Elevator Co. · Paramount Pipe & Supply Co. v. Muhr · McCulloch v. Fox & Jacobs, 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) A claimant must bring suit for [injury, damage, or loss to real or personal property] against a person who constructs or repairs an improvement to real property not later than 10 years after the substantial completion of the improvement in an action arising out of a defective or unsafe condition of the real property or a deficiency in the construction or repair of the improvement.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If we look for the correct analysis in the legislative intent of protecting architects, engineers, and contractors, we might be inclined to draw a boundary [of the statute’s protection] that includes only those persons who supply “individual expertise not susceptible of the quality control standards of the factory” [footnote omitted] and excludes manufacturers or suppliers of standardized goods such as circuit breakers, garage door openers, and mass-produced heating units. However, doing so would require us to depart from an unbroken line of authority developed in several Texas appellate court decisions applying the repose statute to manufacturers of such goods intended for use as improvements.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the Texas legislature intended the repose statute to protect a specific class of economic actors — construction industry professionals who perform certain functions....”
3 later decisions 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.