Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 982 FSUPP 355 - Rudd v. Electrolux Corp.

Rudd v. Electrolux Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
4
states following
December 2021
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently December 2021

8 state decisions

701997200020102020decided

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) · 33 U.S.C. § 1321 · 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (§ 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980)

Relies on Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · United States v. Alaska · White v. Illinois · Kachina Plywood, Inc. v. Hurt · Brown v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

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

  1. “(1) a duty created by a statute or ordinance; (2) that the statute or ordinance was enacted to protect a class of persons which includes the plaintiff; (3) a breach of the statutory duty; (4) .that the injury sustained was suffered by an interest which the statute protected; (5) that the injury was of the nature contemplated in the statute; and, (6) that the violation of the statute proximately caused the injury.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The elements for a trespass caused by leaking hazardous substances are as follows: (1) plaintiff was in possession of the property; (2) the defendant himself, or an object under his control, voluntarily entered, caused to enter, or remained present upon plaintiff's property; and, (3) the entry was unauthorized.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.