Perfetti v. McGhan Medical’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 11 district · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably State v. Fish (1985), Jaramillo v. Fisher Controls Co., Inc. (1985)
4 federal appellate · 11 district · 50 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 Santor v. a & M KARAGHEUSIAN, INC. · Alexander v. Delgado Ex Rel. Delgado · Kassab v. Soya · 90 Wash. 2d 9 - Terhune v. A. H. Robins Co. · Stang v. Hertz Corporation
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as: (а) pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and (c) are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; and (3) Unless excluded or modified (Section 2-316 [55-2-316 NMSA 1978]) other implied warranties may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“In this case the trial court could have ruled that there was no factual issue as to the adequacy or properness of defendant's warning as to the nature and extent of the danger, and that the warning was deficient as a matter of law. Although the surgeon knew generally of the danger of deflation, he had only minimum knowledge of delayed deflation at the time the prosthesis was implanted. The surgeon expected the prosthesis to last from 10-to-15 years and would not have used the prosthesis if he had been aware of the danger resulting from wear due to a fold in the prosthesis. A witness for defendant testified there is a 20-to-30 percent incidence of capsular contracture where there has been a subcutaneous mastectomy, that the manufacturer was aware that folding and rubbing of the prosthesis was foreseeable as a result of capsular contracture and that no warning was given as to this problem. Defendant got more than the evidence supported when the issue of the sufficiency of the warning was submitted to the jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Defendant's claim is based on the surgeon's general knowledge of the danger of deflation and that deflation could occur at any time. This mistakes the danger involved and, thus, the warning that was required. Defendant's duty was to warn of the nature and extent of the danger of a leak developing because of wear of the prosthesis at a fold resulting from capsular contracture. There was a factual question for the jury as to the surgeon's knowledge of this danger; the trial court could not have properly ruled on the surgeon's knowledge as a matter of law.”
2 later decisions 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.