American Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Grinnell’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 5 district · 459 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 558 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway (2004), Torrington Co. v. Stutzman (2001)
34 federal appellate · 5 district · 459 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont))
Relationships
Relies on Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co. · Henderson v. Brown · Pool v. Ford Motor Co. · Montgomery v. Kennedy
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 558 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the movant has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; (2) in deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the nonmovant will be taken as true; and (3) every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the nonmovant and any doubts must be resolved in favor of the nonmovant.”
25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the utility of the product to the user and to the public as a whole weighed against the gravity and likelihood of injury from its use; (2) the availability of a substitute product which would meet the same need and not be unsafe or unreasonably expensive; (3) the manufacturer’s ability to eliminate the unsafe character of the product without seriously impairing its usefulness or significantly increasing its costs; (4) the user’s anticipated awareness of the dangers inherent in the product and their avoida-bility because of the general public knowledge of the obvious condition of the product, or of the existence of suitable warnings or instructions; and (5) the expectations of the ordinary consumer.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if (a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.”
7 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.