Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1964–1979 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hackett Ex Rel. Hackett v. Wabash Railroadgreen1 sentence1979Defendants in Hackett v. Wabash Railroad Company, 271 S.W.2d 573, 577, 579 [13] (Mo.1954), concerning plaintiff’s instruction regarding defendants’ duty “to give a timely and adequate warning of the' approach of a train,” asserted the charge gave the jury' a “roving commission” to determine the kind of warning that should have been given. | 1 | 1 |
Sterling Drug, Inc., a Corporation v. Maxine F. Cornishgreen1 sentence1968Plaintiff’s case was submitted by Instruction 2: “Your verdict must be for the plaintiff if you believe: “FIRST, defendant sold Aralen for use in the treatment' of lupus erythematosus, and “SECOND, Aralen would cause serious damage to the retina of the eyes of some individuals using such drug on long term therapy in the manner and for the purpose intended, and “THIRD, defendant knew or by using ordinary care could have known of the danger of such eye damage, and “FOURTH: plaintiff and his doctors did not know and by using ordinary care could not have known of such danger, and “FIFTH, plaintiff | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Baldwin v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
green
1 sentence1978Co., 425 S.W.2d 905 (Mo.1968). *944 It is clear from the foregoing that plaintiffs’ verdict directing instructions correctly submitted for the jury’s consideration whether defendant had met its common law duty to give a timely and adequate warning such as an ordinarily careful and prudent person would give under similar circumstances. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Texas v. United States
green
1 sentence1967The plaintiff’s petition was in five counts but Sterling’s liability and her right to recover was submitted upon the single assignment of negligence that Sterling knew or should have known of the “dangerous potentialities” of its drug and “failed to give a timely and adequate warning to the doctor who was prescribing said drugs.” Upon this appeal Sterling does not challenge this basic rule and duty: “[W]here the drug is a prescription drug, the manufacturer has a duty to properly warn the doctor of the dangers involved.” Yarrow v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 263 F.Supp. 1 . c. 162; Sterling Drug, Inc | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Chestnut v. People of State of New York
green
2 sentences1967The plaintiff’s petition was in five counts but Sterling’s liability and her right to recover was submitted upon the single assignment of negligence that Sterling knew or should have known of the “dangerous potentialities” of its drug and “failed to give a timely and adequate warning to the doctor who was prescribing said drugs.” Upon this appeal Sterling does not challenge this basic rule and duty: “[W]here the drug is a prescription drug, the manufacturer has a duty to properly warn the doctor of the dangers involved.” Yarrow v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 263 F.Supp. 1 . c. 162; Sterling Drug, Inc 1967Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Cornish, 370 F.2d 1 . c. 84-85. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Montgomery v. Sobel
neutral
1 sentence1964In refused Instruction “A” defendant hypothesized the evidence as to the location of the two vehicles, speed, and other facts which supported its defense, but incorporated therein was the following: ■“ * * * and if you find that the plaintiff’s automobile reached the west curb lane of Cardinal Avenue and made a left turn directly into the path of and in close and dangerous proximity to said moving motorbus at a time when plaintiff knew, ■or in the exercise of the highest degree of care should have known that it was dangerous to do so and that plaintiff made such turn without a timely and adequ | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Pulley v. Scott
green
2 sentences1964Of course, there was no need for two instructions submitting the same theory of defense, Pulley v. Scott, 362 Mo. 1217 , 247 S.W.2d 767 ; Hamell v. St. 1964Of course, there was no need for two instructions submitting the same theory of defense, Pulley v. Scott, 362 Mo. 1217 , 247 S.W.2d 767 ; Hamell v. St. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.