14 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pottle v. Up-Right, Inc.green2 sentences2009Pottle, 628 A.2d at 675 . 2009"A products liability action for failure to warn requires a three-part analysis: (1) whether the defendant had a duty to warn the plaintiff; (2) whether the actual warning on the product, if any, was inadequate; and (3) whether the inadequate warning proximately caused the plaintiff's injury." Pottle v. Up-Right, Inc., 628 A.2d 672, 675 (Me. 1993) (citing McNeal v. Hi-La Powered Scaffolding, Inc., 836 F.2d 637, 641 (D.C. | 2 | 5 |
Burns v. Architectural Doors and Windowsgreen2 sentences2017To establish a claim that a product was defective for a failure to warn, the plaintiff must prove three elements in addition to those in the strict liability statute: "(1) the defendant had a duty to warn the plaintiff of the product hazard; (2) any actual warning on the product was inadequate; and (3) the inadequate warning or absence of a warning proximately caused the plaintiffs injury." Burns, 2011 ME 61 , ~ 23, 19 A.3d 823 . 2017To establish a claim that a product was defective for a failure to warn, the plaintiff must prove three elements in addition to those in the strict liability statute: "(1) the defendant had a duty to warn the plaintiff of the product hazard; (2) any actual warning on the product was inadequate; and (3) the inadequate warning or absence of a warning proximately caused the plaintiffs injury." Burns, 2011 ME 61 , ~ 23, 19 A.3d 823 . | 1 | 5 |
Bouchard v. American Orthodonticsgreen2 sentences2018Bouchard, 661 A.2d at 1145 . 2009Orthodontics, 661 A.2d 1143,1145 (Me. 1995) (citing Pottle, 628 A.2d at 675 ). | 1 | 2 |
Carl McNeal v. Hi-Lo Powered Scaffolding, Inc., an Ohio Corporationgreen2 sentences2009"A products liability action for failure to warn requires a three-part analysis: (1) whether the defendant had a duty to warn the plaintiff; (2) whether the actual warning on the product, if any, was inadequate; and (3) whether the inadequate warning proximately caused the plaintiff's injury." Pottle v. Up-Right, Inc., 628 A.2d 672, 675 (Me. 1993) (citing McNeal v. Hi-La Powered Scaffolding, Inc., 836 F.2d 637, 641 (D.C. 1993McNeal, 836 F.2d at 641-44 . | 1 | 2 |
Blackstone v. Rollinsgreen2 sentences2018See Blackstone v. Rollins, 157 Me. 85 , 170 A.2d 405 (Me. 1961). 1 The Court denies FCA's motion with respect to Plaintiffs claim for strict products liability for manufacture or design defect, 2 In order to plead a cause of action for strict products liability failure to warn, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant had a duty to warn the plaintiff; that the actual warning on the product, if any, was inadequate; and that the inadequate warning proximately caused the plaintiffs injury. 2018See Blackstone v. Rollins, 157 Me. 85 , 170 A.2d 405 (Me. 1961). 1 The Court denies FCA's motion with respect to Plaintiffs claim for strict products liability for manufacture or design defect, 2 In order to plead a cause of action for strict products liability failure to warn, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant had a duty to warn the plaintiff; that the actual warning on the product, if any, was inadequate; and that the inadequate warning proximately caused the plaintiffs injury. | 1 | 1 |
Bicknell Manufacturing Co. v. Bennettgreen1 sentence1983That interpretation is in keeping with the statutory authority of the Superior Court to decide any title issues raised in forcible entry and detainer actions. 4 As noted in Bicknell Manufacturing Co. v. Bennett, 417 A.2d 414, 419-20 (Me.1980), the District Court and its predecessors have been historically without power to adjudicate claims of title; the District Court can make a determination that a claim is frivolous only to avoid the use of a clearly inadequate claim of title as a pretext to cause the forcible entry and detainer action to be removed to the Superior Court. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lorfano v. Dura Stone Steps, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017A seller has a duty to inform users and consumers of dangers that the seller "either knows or should have know about at the time the product is sold." Lorfano, 569 A.2d at 197 . 2015In a defective product case based on a failure to warn, a plaintiff must show that "(1) the defendant had a duty to warn the plaintiff of the product hazard; (2) any actual warning on the product was inadequate; and (3) the inadequate warning or absence of a warning proximately caused the plaintiffs injury." See id. (citing Burns v. Architectural Doors & Windows, 2011 ME 61 , ~ 23 n.7, 19 A.3d 823 ). | 2 | 2015–2017 |
United States v. Francois
green
2 sentences2014Id. 2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.