11 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Magnuson Ex Rel. Mabe v. Kelsey-Hayes Co.green1 sentence2017See Magnuson by Mabe v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 844 S.W.2d 448, 455 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992) (explaining that a products liability claim can arise from (1) a design defect, (2) a manufacturing defect, and/or (3) a failure to warn of danger). | 1 | 1 |
Nichols Ex Rel. Nichols v. Union Underwear Co.green1 sentence2015See, e.g., Nichols v. Union Underwear Co., Inc., 602 S.W.2d 429, 433 (Ky.1980) (stating that in design defect cases in Kentucky, where the prudent- manufacturer test is followed, the distinction between claims based on strict liability and negligence “is of no practical significance so far as the standard of conduct required of the defendant is concerned.”). | 1 | 1 |
Gramex Corp. v. Green Supply, Inc.green1 sentence2007MAI—Civil 6th 26.01; Cf. Gramex Corp. v. Green Supply, Inc., 89 S.W.3d 432, 441 (Mo. banc 2002) (stating that MAI 25.04 sets out the required elements for a products liability claim). | 1 | 1 |
Blevins v. Cushman Motorsgreen2 sentences2006See Blevins v. Cushman Motors, 551 S.W.2d 602, 607-08 (Mo. banc 1977)(explaining that a negligence claim differs from a products liability claim in that the focus in a negligence claim is the defendant's conduct, whereas the focus in a products liability claim is the product itself). 2006See Blevins v. Cushman Motors, 551 S.W.2d 602, 607-08 (Mo. banc 1977)(explaining that a negligence claim differs from a products liability claim in that the focus in a negligence claim is the defendant’s conduct, whereas the focus in a products liability claim is the product itself). | 1 | 1 |
Lay v. P & G Health Care, Inc.green1 sentence2004Lay v. P & G Health Care, Inc., 37 S.W.3d 310, 325 (Mo.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Gunnett v. Girardier Building & Realty Co.green1 sentence2004Gunnett v. Girar-dierBldg. and Realty Co., 70 S.W.3d 632, 636-37 (Mo.App.E.D.2002). | 1 | 1 |
Kearl v. Lederle Laboratoriesgreen2 sentences1986Kearl v. Lederle Laboratories, 172 Cal. App.3d 812 , 218 Cal.Rptr. 453, 465 (1985). 1986Kearl v. Lederle Laboratories, 172 Cal. App.3d 812 , 218 Cal.Rptr. 453, 465 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
green
2 sentences2015Elmore, 673 S.W.2d at 438 ; Nesselrode, 707 S.W.2d at 375 ; Thompson, 207 S.W.3d at 107 . 2015Elmore, 673 S.W.2d at 438 ; Nesselrode, 707 S.W.2d at 375 ; Thompson, 207 S.W.3d at 107 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Elmore v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Elmore, 673 S.W.2d at 438 ; Nesselrode, 707 S.W.2d at 375 ; Thompson, 207 S.W.3d at 107 . 2015Elmore, 673 S.W.2d at 438 ; Nesselrode, 707 S.W.2d at 375 ; Thompson, 207 S.W.3d at 107 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Nesselrode v. Executive Beechcraft, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Elmore, 673 S.W.2d at 438 ; Nesselrode, 707 S.W.2d at 375 ; Thompson, 207 S.W.3d at 107 . 2015Elmore, 673 S.W.2d at 438 ; Nesselrode, 707 S.W.2d at 375 ; Thompson, 207 S.W.3d at 107 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Barnes v. Tools & MacHinery Builders, Inc.
green
2 sentences1991Id. 1986It deserved a better fate. [1] The strict products liability standard of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A was adopted by this Court in Keener v. Dayton Electric Manufacturing Co., 445 S.W.2d 362 (Mo. 1969). [2] The identical issue is also raised in Barnes v. Tools & Machinery Builders, Inc., 715 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. banc 1986), decided concurrently herewith. [3] Lippard v. Houdaille Industries, Inc., 715 S.W.2d 506 No. 49226 (Mo.App. | 2 | 1986–1991 |
Gustafson v. Benda
green
1 sentence1988The case was tried by the plaintiff, both defendants and the court on the assumption that the principles of comparative fault recognized by our Supreme Court in Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983) were applicable in a product’s liability case. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Keener v. Dayton Electric Manufacturing Company
green
2 sentences1986It deserved a better fate. [1] The strict products liability standard of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A was adopted by this Court in Keener v. Dayton Electric Manufacturing Co., 445 S.W.2d 362 (Mo. 1969). [2] The identical issue is also raised in Barnes v. Tools & Machinery Builders, Inc., 715 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. banc 1986), decided concurrently herewith. [3] Lippard v. Houdaille Industries, Inc., 715 S.W.2d 506 No. 49226 (Mo.App. 1986The strict products liability standard of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A was adopted by this Court in Keener v. Dayton Electric Manufacturing Co., 445 S.W.2d 362 (Mo. 1969). . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.